This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Quadrilateral Security Dialogue article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Quadrilateral Security Dialogue received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on March 2012 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I was asked to review this article on March 18, 2012, and here is a summation of my impressions:
That is all for now. A "B" rating is appropriate. Colipon+( Talk) 20:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I’ve been asked to review this article. My knowledge of the Quadrilateral Security Dialog is mostly limited to what I’ve read in the article. Much of the article is devoted to opinions on the Dialog, so most of my comments will be addressing how to improve the article within that framework. The article contains lots of detail, and it looks like there’s been a good effort to cover different viewpoints and that they have been presented neutrally.
On to smaller stuff:
-- Wikimedes ( talk) 03:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
"The first iteration of QSD ceased following the withdrawal of Australia in 2007, during the tenure of prime minister John Howard, reflecting Australian concerns about joining a perceived alliance against China with two of its historic adversaries, Japan and India[1]."
I cannot find where it says that Japan and India are China's "historic adversaries" in the given source. If anything, if we do not only look at specific periods in the history of the last 125 years or so, but at the 1500 years or so of history between Japan and China and even more in the case of India and China, quite the opposite is true. Anyway, I think neither the "historic adversaries" nor the fact that these civilizations all share quite a lot of friendly cultural exchange with comparably very little direct confrontation over the course of their long histories needs to be in this article.
Thus, I propose we simply remove the "two of its historic adversaries,". It is not really of value here and disputable. If it needs to be included for whatever reason, it has to be much more precise.
I also do think that the given source does not really support the sentence anyway. According to the line
"BRENDAN NELSON: I have explained the nature of, and basis of, our trilateral strategic dialogue with Japan and the United States. But I have also reassured China that so-called quadrilateral dialogue with India is not something that we are pursuing.",
it would merely support the statement that China was worried about not being included in a possible strategic dialoge between these three countries and India, and that the first iteration of the QSD ceased because at that time, Australia simply had no interest in pursuing quadrilateral dialogue with India. The section Timeline already describes why Australia left or might have left in much more detail.
Does anyone disagree? 2003:F6:274C:B400:6CBF:884A:ABFE:E8 ( talk) 17:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Another sentence in the section timeline says that it ended in 2009:The first iteration of Quad ceased following the withdrawal of Australia in 2007, during the tenure of prime minister John Howard, reflecting Australian concerns about joining a perceived alliance against China with two of its historic adversaries, Japan and India. [1]
In April 2009 following his nomination as Australian prime minister, Kevin Rudd visited China's foreign minister, Yang Jiechi, before visiting Japan. At a subsequently organized meeting between Yang and the Australian foreign minister Stephen Smith, Australia unilaterally announced its departure from the Quadrilateral. [2] [3]
The The Diplomat article states that Kevin Rudd visited Yang Jieqi on February 5th. It is from February 2008 and does not explicitly state when the Quad ended, although it could imply that it ended in February 2008. The The Austrialian article is mainly about Julia Gillard's trip to China in 2011 and does not exactly state when the Quad ended either (archived here http://archive.is/rW2x):
I cannot find anything about April 2009. This article here https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australia-and-the-quad/ explicitly states that Australia left the Quad in February 2008. The sentenceThe fact one of Rudd's first foreign policy decisions as leader was to ask his then foreign minister Stephen Smith to unilaterally withdraw from the Quadrilateral Initiative (involving the US, Japan, India and Australia) while standing next to his Chinese counterpart Wang Jiechi gave Beijing the impression that Canberra's move away from the US and towards the Chinese sphere of influence had begun. That Rudd visited China but not Japan on his first overseas trip in Asia reconfirmed that impression to the Chinese.
also does not make sense because it was not under Howard (who held office until December 2007) that the first Quad ceased to exist but only after Rudd took office. However, there is valuable information in the given reference which should be included in the article.This position was reaffirmed under Howard's successor Kevin Rudd. [4]
References
I have for now removed this sentence "A French Rubis-class nuclear attack submarine, Emeraude, has successfully concluded a passage of the South China Sea. [1]". While relevant in the context of South China Sea politics, the link with the Quad is not. France is not a member of Quad, and the passage of the submarine doesn't seem to have happened on request or in coordination with the Quad. Morgengave ( talk) 13:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
References
I've been going through the article, and there are a ton of references that have been added that are just links to statements by the governments or militaries of Japan, the United States, Australia, or India. Those aren't reliable sources and while they might be cited under specific circumstances, we can rely upon newspaper commentary instead.
Another issue that's problematic: we shouldn't be using this article as a place to dump every online meeting or discussion that occurs between diplomats of the United States, Japan, Australia or India. What happens is that the article turns into a long list of events: "In March 2021 this happened... In April 2021 this happened... In May 2021 diplomat so-and-so emphasized the importance of freedom, security, and apple pie..." etc. That's not great prose for an encyclopedia article and it's not what readers need. They are looking for a summary, not a blow-by-blow account. - Darouet ( talk) 14:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
A "proseline" approach remains a big problem in this article: material is being added that is repetitive and long-winded. As I wrote above, not every meeting that occurs in each day of March 2021 needs a new sentence or paragraph.
Another problem I'm seeing is what looks like advocacy editing: text being added that unnecessarily mentions every minister involved in negotiations, and is referenced to official government websites or statements. We should be citing newspapers that provide analysis, not statements released by militaries or governments. - Darouet ( talk) 18:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I see the section describing events, but I don't know whether the sources verify them as part of the "Second Cold War" or of the article subject. Maybe I'm missing something here. -- George Ho ( talk) 12:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I was the one who had created that section heading and I did so in response to language I was reading in sources.
\*Nikkei Asia [2]:The Quad, however, experienced a rebirth under the Trump administration, which actively pursued an anti-China alliance amid a raging “New Cold War” with Beijing.
Japan will turn to Quad in 'new Cold War': Defense Ministry think tank
How the Quad intends to contain an increasingly stronger China, or secure the Indo-Pacific region in general, will determine if this is the beginning of another Cold War.
“In fact, if the Quad was serious about countering China in the Indo-Pacific, it needs to offer an alternative to China’s economic diplomacy,” he added. “The world is far more interdependent than during the last Cold War. Ideology matters far less, economic advantage matters far more..." Einar Tangen, a Beijing-based political analyst, said he expects China to step up economic support for neighbours in the face of a stronger Quad alliance.“What China wants to avoid is the kind of Cold War containment where its neighbours are pulled into an antagonistic relationship,”
The United States, India, Australia and Japan have held their first meeting of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or “Quad”, since President Joe Biden’s inauguration – showing the new US administration’s support for a grouping China has criticised as a “clique” that could start a new Cold War, despite expectations Washington would ease some pressure on Beijing to improve US-China relations.
The Quad was established in 2004 but given new life under Trump in 2017. Since then it has become a driving force that presents an informal challenge to an increasingly powerful China without the overt commitments of an official military alliance... "Some features of the world today look like the early Cold War: two powerful countries that each see each other as threatening," Davidson told Newsweek.
I think this is a good section heading because it's quite descriptive. But I also think we shouldn't use the term in "Wikivoice:" though the term is used a lot with reference to the Quad, I don't think there's any agreement that there truly is a new Cold War - not yet, anyway. - Darouet ( talk) 19:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I have serious concerns about the possibility of paid or advocacy editing to insert the phrase "Free and Open Indo-Pacific" into this article, and to tilt the article's editorial perspective accordingly.
The "Quad" has existed on and off for nearly 15 years, and I first made this article to describe it over a decade ago [7]. As of this time last year, the phrase "Free and Open Indo-Pacific" appeared just once in the article [8].
Today [9], the phrase appears:
Most of this has been added just in the last couple months, with a flurry of references to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan [10] [11] [12].
I don't want this article to be propaganda, but I'm also ashamed if it reads like propaganda. I suggest an informal moratorium on the addition of this phrase literally anywhere into the article without discussion first: I for one will certainly oppose such an addition without agreement here. - Darouet ( talk) 19:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
A 2021 joint statement, "The Spirit of the Quad," emphasizes the shared vision for a Free and Open Indo-Pacific, the rules-based maritime order in the East and South China Seas, and pledge to respond to the economic and health impacts of COVID-19.I think that in cases like this we need to write,
A 2021 joint statement, "The Spirit of the Quad," emphasizes the shared vision for a " Free and Open Indo-Pacific," which Quad members describe as a rules-based maritime order in the East and South China Seas. The statement pledges the Quad will respond to the economic and health impacts of COVID-19.- Darouet ( talk) 21:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
the unstated priority is countering China’s growing power.The term maritime claims doesn't appear in the source, and I don't think we should use that term, because China also disputes the maritime claims of the quad. - Darouet ( talk) 16:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Here [21] I've removed a bunch of random instances of the repeated phrase "FOIP," and I've also removed a bunch of links to government websites. I've left links to US think tanks, but should we keep those? I'm not sure and will wait for input from others here. - Darouet ( talk) 19:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Darouet:. I disagree with your changes to the structure as they in my view don't cover the content properly. Let me explain. On the "Intermission" section:
On the "Restarting the Quad":
On the "European warships in the Indo-Pacific"; the European involvement is about more than warships. It's also about creating an Indo-Pacific strategy (which includes many topics, not just military ones), stronger rebukes of Chinese claims (joint note verbale, etc.), and strengthening political ties (whence the strong increases in bilateral meetings between European countries and Quad members). And also: Canada is not in Europe, and the EU doesn't have warships.
I suggest we revert back mostly to the old structure, but happy to discuss with you and others. Morgengave ( talk) 19:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The United States has signed on to Japan’s concept of a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” strategy aimed at preserving the international order in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. As the two countries seek to promote this strategy, which is seen as being a response to China’s growing presence, they have drawn Australia and India into quadrilateral security consultations. New Delhi, however, remains somewhat wary in its response to this initiative from Tokyo and Washington.Morgengave, doesn't it seem as though the US signing back on was the critical mover here? Curious to know your thoughts: it seems that's what Nippon is arguing.
The article repeatedly uses the term "Quadrilateral" to refer to the grouping in short. Considering that an alternative in the form of "Quad" already exists and seems to be used more [24] [25] [26], I propose using the term "Quad" to refer to the grouping instead. - Rajan51( talk) 14:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
To reduce the recentivism please undertake the following:
Thank you. 58.182.176.169 ( talk) 10:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Please add a section "Replicating QUAD model" to capture another similar QUADs such as USA + India + UAE + Israel QUAD which is similar in nature and also geared towards countering Chinese influence. Use this article as your reference material to add the text. Thanks.
58.182.176.169 ( talk) 10:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
According to all countries Quad is not a Military Alliance. So why can't we remove that. SinhaAarush ( talk) 15:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
this address is a frequent vandaliser of many pages. Anishssgj ( talk) 13:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Thw128: this is a formal challenge of your bold move. Please revert the move and gain consensus as you are required to do. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Quadrilateral Security Dialogue article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Quadrilateral Security Dialogue received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on March 2012 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I was asked to review this article on March 18, 2012, and here is a summation of my impressions:
That is all for now. A "B" rating is appropriate. Colipon+( Talk) 20:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I’ve been asked to review this article. My knowledge of the Quadrilateral Security Dialog is mostly limited to what I’ve read in the article. Much of the article is devoted to opinions on the Dialog, so most of my comments will be addressing how to improve the article within that framework. The article contains lots of detail, and it looks like there’s been a good effort to cover different viewpoints and that they have been presented neutrally.
On to smaller stuff:
-- Wikimedes ( talk) 03:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
"The first iteration of QSD ceased following the withdrawal of Australia in 2007, during the tenure of prime minister John Howard, reflecting Australian concerns about joining a perceived alliance against China with two of its historic adversaries, Japan and India[1]."
I cannot find where it says that Japan and India are China's "historic adversaries" in the given source. If anything, if we do not only look at specific periods in the history of the last 125 years or so, but at the 1500 years or so of history between Japan and China and even more in the case of India and China, quite the opposite is true. Anyway, I think neither the "historic adversaries" nor the fact that these civilizations all share quite a lot of friendly cultural exchange with comparably very little direct confrontation over the course of their long histories needs to be in this article.
Thus, I propose we simply remove the "two of its historic adversaries,". It is not really of value here and disputable. If it needs to be included for whatever reason, it has to be much more precise.
I also do think that the given source does not really support the sentence anyway. According to the line
"BRENDAN NELSON: I have explained the nature of, and basis of, our trilateral strategic dialogue with Japan and the United States. But I have also reassured China that so-called quadrilateral dialogue with India is not something that we are pursuing.",
it would merely support the statement that China was worried about not being included in a possible strategic dialoge between these three countries and India, and that the first iteration of the QSD ceased because at that time, Australia simply had no interest in pursuing quadrilateral dialogue with India. The section Timeline already describes why Australia left or might have left in much more detail.
Does anyone disagree? 2003:F6:274C:B400:6CBF:884A:ABFE:E8 ( talk) 17:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Another sentence in the section timeline says that it ended in 2009:The first iteration of Quad ceased following the withdrawal of Australia in 2007, during the tenure of prime minister John Howard, reflecting Australian concerns about joining a perceived alliance against China with two of its historic adversaries, Japan and India. [1]
In April 2009 following his nomination as Australian prime minister, Kevin Rudd visited China's foreign minister, Yang Jiechi, before visiting Japan. At a subsequently organized meeting between Yang and the Australian foreign minister Stephen Smith, Australia unilaterally announced its departure from the Quadrilateral. [2] [3]
The The Diplomat article states that Kevin Rudd visited Yang Jieqi on February 5th. It is from February 2008 and does not explicitly state when the Quad ended, although it could imply that it ended in February 2008. The The Austrialian article is mainly about Julia Gillard's trip to China in 2011 and does not exactly state when the Quad ended either (archived here http://archive.is/rW2x):
I cannot find anything about April 2009. This article here https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australia-and-the-quad/ explicitly states that Australia left the Quad in February 2008. The sentenceThe fact one of Rudd's first foreign policy decisions as leader was to ask his then foreign minister Stephen Smith to unilaterally withdraw from the Quadrilateral Initiative (involving the US, Japan, India and Australia) while standing next to his Chinese counterpart Wang Jiechi gave Beijing the impression that Canberra's move away from the US and towards the Chinese sphere of influence had begun. That Rudd visited China but not Japan on his first overseas trip in Asia reconfirmed that impression to the Chinese.
also does not make sense because it was not under Howard (who held office until December 2007) that the first Quad ceased to exist but only after Rudd took office. However, there is valuable information in the given reference which should be included in the article.This position was reaffirmed under Howard's successor Kevin Rudd. [4]
References
I have for now removed this sentence "A French Rubis-class nuclear attack submarine, Emeraude, has successfully concluded a passage of the South China Sea. [1]". While relevant in the context of South China Sea politics, the link with the Quad is not. France is not a member of Quad, and the passage of the submarine doesn't seem to have happened on request or in coordination with the Quad. Morgengave ( talk) 13:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
References
I've been going through the article, and there are a ton of references that have been added that are just links to statements by the governments or militaries of Japan, the United States, Australia, or India. Those aren't reliable sources and while they might be cited under specific circumstances, we can rely upon newspaper commentary instead.
Another issue that's problematic: we shouldn't be using this article as a place to dump every online meeting or discussion that occurs between diplomats of the United States, Japan, Australia or India. What happens is that the article turns into a long list of events: "In March 2021 this happened... In April 2021 this happened... In May 2021 diplomat so-and-so emphasized the importance of freedom, security, and apple pie..." etc. That's not great prose for an encyclopedia article and it's not what readers need. They are looking for a summary, not a blow-by-blow account. - Darouet ( talk) 14:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
A "proseline" approach remains a big problem in this article: material is being added that is repetitive and long-winded. As I wrote above, not every meeting that occurs in each day of March 2021 needs a new sentence or paragraph.
Another problem I'm seeing is what looks like advocacy editing: text being added that unnecessarily mentions every minister involved in negotiations, and is referenced to official government websites or statements. We should be citing newspapers that provide analysis, not statements released by militaries or governments. - Darouet ( talk) 18:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I see the section describing events, but I don't know whether the sources verify them as part of the "Second Cold War" or of the article subject. Maybe I'm missing something here. -- George Ho ( talk) 12:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I was the one who had created that section heading and I did so in response to language I was reading in sources.
\*Nikkei Asia [2]:The Quad, however, experienced a rebirth under the Trump administration, which actively pursued an anti-China alliance amid a raging “New Cold War” with Beijing.
Japan will turn to Quad in 'new Cold War': Defense Ministry think tank
How the Quad intends to contain an increasingly stronger China, or secure the Indo-Pacific region in general, will determine if this is the beginning of another Cold War.
“In fact, if the Quad was serious about countering China in the Indo-Pacific, it needs to offer an alternative to China’s economic diplomacy,” he added. “The world is far more interdependent than during the last Cold War. Ideology matters far less, economic advantage matters far more..." Einar Tangen, a Beijing-based political analyst, said he expects China to step up economic support for neighbours in the face of a stronger Quad alliance.“What China wants to avoid is the kind of Cold War containment where its neighbours are pulled into an antagonistic relationship,”
The United States, India, Australia and Japan have held their first meeting of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or “Quad”, since President Joe Biden’s inauguration – showing the new US administration’s support for a grouping China has criticised as a “clique” that could start a new Cold War, despite expectations Washington would ease some pressure on Beijing to improve US-China relations.
The Quad was established in 2004 but given new life under Trump in 2017. Since then it has become a driving force that presents an informal challenge to an increasingly powerful China without the overt commitments of an official military alliance... "Some features of the world today look like the early Cold War: two powerful countries that each see each other as threatening," Davidson told Newsweek.
I think this is a good section heading because it's quite descriptive. But I also think we shouldn't use the term in "Wikivoice:" though the term is used a lot with reference to the Quad, I don't think there's any agreement that there truly is a new Cold War - not yet, anyway. - Darouet ( talk) 19:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I have serious concerns about the possibility of paid or advocacy editing to insert the phrase "Free and Open Indo-Pacific" into this article, and to tilt the article's editorial perspective accordingly.
The "Quad" has existed on and off for nearly 15 years, and I first made this article to describe it over a decade ago [7]. As of this time last year, the phrase "Free and Open Indo-Pacific" appeared just once in the article [8].
Today [9], the phrase appears:
Most of this has been added just in the last couple months, with a flurry of references to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan [10] [11] [12].
I don't want this article to be propaganda, but I'm also ashamed if it reads like propaganda. I suggest an informal moratorium on the addition of this phrase literally anywhere into the article without discussion first: I for one will certainly oppose such an addition without agreement here. - Darouet ( talk) 19:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
A 2021 joint statement, "The Spirit of the Quad," emphasizes the shared vision for a Free and Open Indo-Pacific, the rules-based maritime order in the East and South China Seas, and pledge to respond to the economic and health impacts of COVID-19.I think that in cases like this we need to write,
A 2021 joint statement, "The Spirit of the Quad," emphasizes the shared vision for a " Free and Open Indo-Pacific," which Quad members describe as a rules-based maritime order in the East and South China Seas. The statement pledges the Quad will respond to the economic and health impacts of COVID-19.- Darouet ( talk) 21:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
the unstated priority is countering China’s growing power.The term maritime claims doesn't appear in the source, and I don't think we should use that term, because China also disputes the maritime claims of the quad. - Darouet ( talk) 16:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Here [21] I've removed a bunch of random instances of the repeated phrase "FOIP," and I've also removed a bunch of links to government websites. I've left links to US think tanks, but should we keep those? I'm not sure and will wait for input from others here. - Darouet ( talk) 19:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Darouet:. I disagree with your changes to the structure as they in my view don't cover the content properly. Let me explain. On the "Intermission" section:
On the "Restarting the Quad":
On the "European warships in the Indo-Pacific"; the European involvement is about more than warships. It's also about creating an Indo-Pacific strategy (which includes many topics, not just military ones), stronger rebukes of Chinese claims (joint note verbale, etc.), and strengthening political ties (whence the strong increases in bilateral meetings between European countries and Quad members). And also: Canada is not in Europe, and the EU doesn't have warships.
I suggest we revert back mostly to the old structure, but happy to discuss with you and others. Morgengave ( talk) 19:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The United States has signed on to Japan’s concept of a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” strategy aimed at preserving the international order in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. As the two countries seek to promote this strategy, which is seen as being a response to China’s growing presence, they have drawn Australia and India into quadrilateral security consultations. New Delhi, however, remains somewhat wary in its response to this initiative from Tokyo and Washington.Morgengave, doesn't it seem as though the US signing back on was the critical mover here? Curious to know your thoughts: it seems that's what Nippon is arguing.
The article repeatedly uses the term "Quadrilateral" to refer to the grouping in short. Considering that an alternative in the form of "Quad" already exists and seems to be used more [24] [25] [26], I propose using the term "Quad" to refer to the grouping instead. - Rajan51( talk) 14:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
To reduce the recentivism please undertake the following:
Thank you. 58.182.176.169 ( talk) 10:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Please add a section "Replicating QUAD model" to capture another similar QUADs such as USA + India + UAE + Israel QUAD which is similar in nature and also geared towards countering Chinese influence. Use this article as your reference material to add the text. Thanks.
58.182.176.169 ( talk) 10:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
According to all countries Quad is not a Military Alliance. So why can't we remove that. SinhaAarush ( talk) 15:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
this address is a frequent vandaliser of many pages. Anishssgj ( talk) 13:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Thw128: this is a formal challenge of your bold move. Please revert the move and gain consensus as you are required to do. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)