Talk:2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wei4Earth (talk | contribs) at 02:29, 6 August 2022 (→‎Move to 2022 US Congressional visit to Taiwan - or similiar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

переклад/translation

IgorTurzh (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth crisis claim

The Global Times's twitter account put out a post that claimed that Pelosi's visit to Taiwan is the "4th Taiwan Straits Crisis." Perhaps a mention of this should be in the article, clearly citing the Global Times of course. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:51F4:5530:4F77:46A7 (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources to definitively say that this is the fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis. Indeed, we could cite the Chinese position and then clearly indicate that this is their opinion only and not necessarily a fact. With that being said, I think doing such a thing is counterintuitive since it is helping to spread the Chinese war propaganda narrative. As it stands, Taiwan has done nothing wrong and China is conducting military exercises around the island. We need to report the FACTS and ignore the propaganda until it becomes unignorable. At the moment, we can happily say that this is NOT the fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis, at least, not yet it isn't. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There has been more discussion about this at 2022 Chinese military exercises around Taiwan article, which has only recently been renamed from "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis". QueenofBithynia (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 2022 US Congressional visit to Taiwan - or similiar

A total of six exclusively Democrat members of congress were invited to travel and it was done on a US airforce plane. This was not Pelosis solo sojurn to Taipei --LaserLegs (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's being reported as primarily a visit by Pelosi and by no one else of significant importance. We must report the facts as the reliable sources report them. Doing otherwise is original research. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming to "2022 US Congressional Delegation visit to Taiwan" as this is the formal name that appears on the Speaker of the House's website and in reliable sources (see The Washington Post, CNN, Fox News etc.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a contention between "official name" and "common name". The common understanding of this incident is that it was sparked by Nancy Pelosi visiting Taiwan, and Nancy Pelosi alone. It seems quite obvious that Pelosi would be accompanied by an entourage; that's nothing remarkable. What is, on the other hand, remarkable, is China's extreme reaction to the leadup to this event and to the event itself once it had indeed materialized. The actual United States entourage itself is not notable in the slightest. It's the military and diplomatic reaction from China that is notable. That's why I disagree that we should focus this article on the entourage. We need to focus it on what the news was reporting. By the way, this isn't a formal move request, so indicating "support" here is effectively meaningless. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It may perhaps be helpful to clarify the title as, for example, "2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi (US politician) to Taiwan". Nancy Pelosi's visit would not have been notable if she weren't an American citizen who also happens to be the third-most-powerful politician in the country who is officially holding an office (obviously, Trump could be considered more powerful, but he isn't holding an office).
    Do note, though, that we can't really call Pelosi a "US representative" since she wasn't officially representing the United States. Also, calling her an "official" might be a bit confusing for the readers. So, even though the word "politician" doesn't carry the connotation that she's a super important person, it's the best adjective that I can think of at the moment. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Replying to myself: I've done the move by myself just now (I wrote "US" as "U.S."). This seems like an uncontroversial move, regardless of the alternative title that's being suggested here. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Replying to myself: I can't figure out how to move the corresponding Chinese Wikipedia article. So, I'm just going to leave that as it is. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Trump-Kim meeting redirects to North Korea–United States summit (itself a disambig) so it seems theres already a pattern here we should go ahead and implement the same right away --LaserLegs (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, this event should be called something along the lines of "2022 US delegation to Taiwan", or "2022 US-Taiwan summit in Taipei" (presumably, it was held in that city). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've changed my mind. The most notable fact about this event is that a representative (whether officially or not) of the United States visited Taiwan. It is important to know exactly which two countries are involved in this significant diplomatic event. The fact that one of these countries is simply represented by a single person (Nancy Pelosi) is clearly a problem. The alternative would be to rename this article to "2022 meeting between Nancy Pelosi and Tsai Ing-wen". The article either has to mention the two VIPs (very important people) involved, or it has to mention the two countries involved. It cannot have one and not the other. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. But which title should we use? The more common "Nancy Pelosi visit" or the more accurate "congressional delegation visit"? Wei4Earth (talk, contribs) 02:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan population views

The only paragraph about the views of the Taiwan population, which surely should be an important element of the article, has been deleted by a single-article new user in this edit. The reason given was "I have looked around and haven’t seen this poll reported by anywhere else. These partisan polls also appear to be fairly commonplace in Taiwan’s news industry . Deleted as being unimportant". While arguably a reason for deleting the poll sentence, it does not explain why the whole para should be deleted.

I did a quick google and found a The New Zealand Herald (WP: "considered a newspaper of record for New Zealand") article giving more details of the poll in English, and also supporting the para intro by saying in "public opinion on the tiny island nation is mixed".

I propose, per the Active Arbitration rules above about reinstating, the para is reinstated with small changes as (with full cites):

The population of Taiwan had mixed views about the visit. There were small demonstrations, in the hundreds, both for and against the visit. Taiwan's media prioritized other news, including a local heatwave and local elections. In a poll of 7,500 readers of the United Daily News, 61% thought the visit was "not welcome" as it "may destabilize the Taiwan Strait".[1][2]

Obviously this needs expanding on to properly show Taiwan population views, but we do need a start somewhere. Any objections? Rwendland (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can restore the paragraph as you wish. Oftentimes, removing important paragraphs simply due to one small fault (without looking at the bigger picture) constitutes disruptive editing. We are here to build an encyclopaedia, not to rip it down. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, the fact that the article that was removed was cited to The Guardian is alarming. I'm pretty sure that news source is regarded as generally reliable, which means that a reliable source was removed simply on the basis of a personal opinion, which just isn't good enough. The original source was strong enough to remain in the article. The original removal was unfounded. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the original paragraph and its original source just now, but you can amend the paragraph as you wish. As I said, the original removal was unfounded because it was sourced to the Guardian. Also, given the context, it is obviously extremely relevant information. The fact that one user thinks opinion polls in Taiwan are fake is not a good enough reason to delete the properly sourced information. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title of the article

@WikiCleanerMan - What objection do you have to the title that I moved the page to? As far as I can tell, it's both a non-contentious title and a factual title. The only reason for not using that title is brevity. Otherwise, I don't see any reason that it could offend anyone? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you actually don't need to generate a consensus about a new title if you think it's non-controversial. Only after objections are made to a seemingly non-controversial new title, does a consensus need to be generated. Hence, I am asking your opinion, since you're the one who reverted the new title with no reason other than "needs consensus" (which, as I've explained, is circular logic). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:WikiCleanerMan - There is no rule that says I can't ping you again. In any case, I would like to point out that, I'm pretty sure you are an American, since your user page says that you are a fan of the New York Mets (a reasonable inference, no?). Now, don't you think that Nancy Pelosi is primarily well-known as a politician in America, but not too well-known overseas? Have a moment to think about how you, an American, might view this subject matter differently from me, a non-American. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are escalating this to the point where you are clearly taking this personally. Please stop. And I'm not on Wikipedia to reply to you within your nonsensical 24-hour time frame. So stop this endless pinging. And yes you should stop pinging me when I've said so. You are becoming disruptive toward me and posting on my talk page again will result in an ANI. And how can she not be notable? How does adding U.S. Politician to the title make sense? It doesn't. There isn't a Nancy Pelosi who is a UK politician. And thus the title would need to differentiate. Notability isn't determined by the name of the article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She isn't notable because she's neither a head of state nor a head of government. She's a subordinate politician. Indeed, she holds the third highest political position in America, but that position is IMO nowhere near as well known as the first two, i.e. President and Vice-President. The "Speaker of the House"... What the heck even is "the House"? Nobody outside of America and outside of international politics actually knows what the "House" is. Obviously, I myself do know what it is, but only vaguely. As for specifying "U.S. politician", the reason for that is to indicate that she's a representative of the United States, visiting Taiwan. Otherwise, people just see this article and think "Who is Nancy, and why is it so important that she's visiting Taiwan?". See, I could write an article "Joe Shmoe visits Taiwan and drinks boba tea". Why is that significant? Well, "Joe Shmoe" might be someone like "Joe Biden", who is the U.S. president. In any case, I think you are biased by your status as an American citizen (or person of American descent) when you declare that Nancy Pelosi is indeed internationally renowned. How could you possibly know this if you yourself are an American? You can't read the minds of people living in other countries apart from your own. NOT WHAT FIRST COMES TO MIND <-- That's a Wikipedia guideline. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Names of articles are not reflected by your opinion or mine or anyone else. Don't accuse me of bias when you're clearly asserting your NPOV by negating any validity of the neutral title of the article prior to your move. And she is notable. If she isn't notable, why does an article on her exist? So Congressional/Parlimanetarly leaders like speakers of the house or parliament are not notable? They clearly are. This article is notable because of the amount of coverage this visit has gotten. Read Notability. Notability on Wikipedia doesn't always reflect "internationally renowned". You're cherry-picking the tiniest things to justify your move which have no basis in fact or reality to begin with. And lastly, leave whatever you think my nationality is out of the picture. That is of no concern. For your nationality or descent, I don't care unless a clear bias is presented in your edits. My edits to his article have not been disruptive nor have added bias to them. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She's not notable because nobody knows exactly who she is apart from Americans. Indeed, even having the title "U.S. politician visits Taiwan" would be more informative to the average reader than the current title. Do you not see how in a section above, some people are arguing to change the title to "US delegation visits Taiwan"? Clearly, a major reason for the term "US" in there is to indicate that this is a diplomatic exchange between the US and Taiwan. As it stands, there's two important countries that this event involves (excluding China, a third party), but only one of these countries has its name written in the title of the article, whereas the other country has the name "Nancy Pelosi" in its place. I'm not arguing about the notability of the article itself, I'm simply arguing about the notability of Nancy Pelosi in terms of representing the United States. I don't agree that Nancy Pelosi's name alone is enough to indicate to the average reader that she represents the United States, since a lot of foreigners only know about the president and maybe the vice-president as best. Anyone lower-ranked than that is generally unknown to non-Americans, and that includes Nancy Pelosi, even though she is almost as high-ranked as those two. The president of a country is the figurehead, the international personality, which is why they tend to be well-known overseas. On the other hand, government ministers and senators tend to not be as well known since their job is mainly to govern the country from within, rather than to conduct international diplomatic exchanges. Again, I believe that you are biased, as an American, in thinking that Nancy Pelosi is so famous worldwide that everyone must already know that she's an American politician/representative upon seeing this article's title only, prior to reading the contents within it. I am not rescinding my accusation of bias. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 'common man' on the street of India may not know who she is, HOWEVER, the governments of any country within the United Nations definitely knows who she is, and her powers within the House of Reps in the American gov't are considerable for foreign aid, trade, treaty approval, etc. She's notable, and the heads of state for literally hundreds of countries have dealings with her. Note the heavy coverage of her trip in the Australian press, and the comments by dozens of Australian politicians over it. 50.111.25.27 (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 'common man' is infinitely more important when considering notability as opposed to government officials. You are literally saying that the elite members of society know more about Nancy Pelosi than the common people do... Which, I think, proves my point exactly. Only elite people from overseas know who she is. I'm willing to bet that not even 100% of Americans know who she is either. Maybe only half of them actually pay enough attention to domestic American politics to notice. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note about your wild speculation about American politics... The Speaker of the House is not a "subordinate politician" because in American the three branches of government are equal with none being subordinate to any other. In a technical sense Pelosi has the same "rank" as the President. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what rank Pelosi has in America. As a politician who is not the president or vice-president, she is significantly less internationally renowned than the other two positions. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was not the only US Congressional Delegation visit to Taiwan in 2022, it was one of half a dozen at least. We either need to specify which visit or we need to add an "s" to visit and cover the other ones here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think "US" in the article's new title should be written as "U.S.". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_visit_by_Nancy_Pelosi_to_Taiwan&oldid=1102631758"