Talk:2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan

переклад/translation

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

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)

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)

SoS Antony Blinken's statement rebukes China for "trying to manufacture a crisis" might be worth quoting, in response. Jaredscribe (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  There's a few details that are important, and a few that are non-essential. Coming up with a good title might be tricky in this situation. It is important to remember that the title of an article often plays a strong role in reflecting the scope of the contents within the article, which is why this is so important.

  The most important factors to know about this event:

  1) It is an event that occurred at a specific time, so a date is needed (2022, or August 2022, or 2 August 2022, or 2–3 August 2022, depending on how specific you want to get).

  2) It involved Nancy Pelosi, who is universally regarded as the most important figure in this dispute, so it probably should mention Nancy Pelosi.

  3) It was a diplomatic exchange between two countries, rather than an internal affair of the United States. As such, there needs to be a direct mention of both the United States and Taiwan, and the U.S. cannot simply be implied by Nancy Pelosi's name alone.

  4) It was an international controversy that sparked military tensions between China and Taiwan. So, it can be described as a "controversy", or something like that. Note: There is some overlap between this article and 2022 Chinese military exercises around Taiwan. --> EDIT: We don't have to call the article a "controversy" in the title.

  The fact that this was a "congressional delegation" visit is not necessary to mention, so, IMO, we can scrap that part. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  A comparable article exists titled "1972 visit by Richard Nixon to China". Obviously, the Nixon–China article's title matches the original title of the Pelosi–Taiwan article in terms of its format. However, the major catch is that Richard Nixon was the president of the United States at the time, plus this event occurred 50 years ago rather than just a few days ago. Furthermore, based on historical evidence, this diplomatic visit by Nixon eventually resulted in the establishment of official diplomatic relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China, which had huge implications for decades to come. On the other hand, Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan in August 2022 is basically a nothing burger at the moment since nothing tangible has happened just yet. Only the August 2022 military exercises by China have occurred, but this isn't a definitive conflict just yet, so we can't even say that this is a major outcome of the visit at the moment. So far, the status quo across the Taiwan Strait has not changed in a major way at the moment. Rather, the situation is showing signs that it might change in the near future, but nothing concrete has occurred just yet to declare that it has definitely changed already. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  !!! Another important factor to consider is that Nancy Pelosi was not officially representing the United States, but was rather on a quasi-official diplomatic mission. It was neither completely casual nor completely official, but was rather somewhere in-between. The visit was not strongly endorsed by President Joe Biden, although he didn't strongly oppose it either. So, we can't say that the "Biden Administration" was directly involved in this diplomatic visit. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  To be honest, after reviewing all of these details, I still think my original recommendation "2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi (U.S. politician) to Taiwan" was the best option. We could alternatively call Pelosi the "(US House speaker)", or "(US official)", or something along those lines. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  2022 visit by U.S. House speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan or 2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi (U.S. House speaker) to Taiwan Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think "US" in the article's new title should be written as "U.S.". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 6 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is consensus that the title should emphasize Nancy Pelosi, to reflect most sources about this visit emphasizing her presence. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

---

2022 United States congressional delegation visit to Taiwan → 2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan

2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan was moved to 2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi (U.S. politician) to Taiwan at 13:30, 5 August 2022, and, after being moved back at 14:11, 5 August 2022, it was moved to 2022 US Congressional Delegation visit to Taiwan at 22:35, 5 August 2022 and to 2022 United States congressional delegation visit to Taiwan at 02:00, 6 August 2022. The page should be moved back to 2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan because 1. the article title should be the commonly recognizable name and this visit is most commonly referred to as Nancy Pelosi's visit; 2. this visit was notable for it was led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, not an ordinary congressperson; 3. more than one US congressional delegation visited Taiwan in 2022 (e.g., Senator Lindsey Graham et al.'s visit in April, Senator Tammy Duckworth et al.'s visit in May, and Senator Rick Scott's visit in July) and the current title is ambiguous. Neo-Jay (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons that Neo-Jay explains. In addition, titles do not need to be officially or pedantically correct (WP:OFFICIAL). They also do not need more detail than necessary to be unambiguous, like 2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi (U.S. politician) to Taiwan was (WP:PRECISE, WP:CONCISE). Adumbrativus (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Most sources talk about Nancy Pelosi. Sure, she wasn't alone, but the article is about her visit, not her company. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose (Modify) - I don't think this article should mention just Nancy Pelosi in the title without also mentioning the U.S. in some capacity. This is because the event was a diplomatic exchange between two countries, so it's important to know that the U.S. and Taiwan were both involved. Nancy Pelosi was definitely the most important figure here, but it's still a bit absurd in my opinion to not also mention the United States in the title, regardless of the "concise" argument. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  I will also add that I think it's inaccurate to regard the scope of this article as only pertaining to Nancy Pelosi. That logic only applies to situations wherein Nancy Pelosi is dealing with domestic issues in the United States. Given that this is an international event between at least two countries (three including China), we have to regard the article primarily as a part of international relations rather than internal United States politics. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Furthermore, I continue to disagree with the notion that Nancy Pelosi is notable enough to be dissociated from her position as a U.S. official on a diplomatic visit. Nancy Pelosi is (1) not dead yet, so she's not a historical figure, (2) neither a head of state nor a head of government, meaning that she isn't internationally renowned at the moment, and (3) has only held her position as speaker of the House for a few years, so it's not like everybody around the world would have become familiar with her status after just a few years. EDIT: Well, it seems she also held the position from 2007 to 2011, prior to her re-appointment in 2019. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  I basically don't strongly support either of the titles that are being presented, i.e. "2022 United States congressional delegation visit to Taiwan" and "2022 Nancy Pelosi visit to Taiwan". Both of these titles have good parts and bad parts. Ultimately, I cannot fully endorse either one of them. The argument about "official name not needed" is definitely valid, but there's a fine line between "common name" and "imprecise". You have to be precise to at least a certain degree. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

What title do you recommend? 2022 visit by the U.S House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan? There is no need to mention visitor's nationality or position in the title of an article about a diplomatic visit (see articles in Category:Diplomatic visits). And does title "1972 visit by Richard Nixon to China" indicate that Richard Nixon was "dealing with domestic issues in the United States"? Of course not. Nationality or position may be added to article title for disambiguation. Unless another person whose name happens to be Nancy Pelosi also visited Taiwan in 2022 and her visit has a Wikipedia article, we absolutely do not need add nationality or position to the title of this article. --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

In a section above, I've recommended this title, "2022 visit by U.S. House speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan", which is basically an abbreviated version of the one you just linked above. We don't have to call her "the U.S. House of Representatives Speaker" when "U.S. House speaker" will suffice.

My version of the title is moderately long, but it's not so long so as to be problematic.

FURTHERMORE --> My title has the keywords "Nancy Pelosi" and "U.S. House speaker" in it, which means that the Google searches "Nancy Pelosi Taiwan" or "US House speaker Taiwan" will both land the reader exactly onto this page. Theoretically, having the phrase "U.S. House speaker" in the title will actually increase positive browser hits, rather than decrease them. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, in the sections above, I have explained exactly why the Nixon visit to China is not properly comparable to Pelosi's visit to Taiwan. There are key details between these two events that make them different: (1) Nixon was the president, not the House speaker, (2) the Nixon event occurred 50 years ago, rather than a few days ago, and (3) the Nixon event had definitive consequences for the future of Chinese–United States relations, whereas Pelosi's visit has so far not resulted in any major changes to the status quo of Taiwan's situation just yet, and implying so is WP:CRYSTAL. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

In that category that you linked, virtually all of the entries are about diplomatic visits that were conducted by heads of state or heads of government. The Nancy Pelosi visit to Taiwan is dramatically different from all of the rest of these articles because Nancy Pelosi is neither a head of state nor a head of government. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

"U.S. House speaker" is absolutely unnecessary to be added to the title. Nancy Pelosi is clear enough and notable enough. We do not need to add "U.S. House speaker" for disambiguation or to indicate that this visit was official or diplomatic. The title without "U.S. House speaker" (2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan) does not mean that Nancy Pelosi was "dealing with domestic issues in the United States". I really don't understand why you have such an idea. And why does head of state/government matter? The Speaker of the US House of Representatives is more notable than many heads of state/government of small countries. --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

And why does head of state/government matter? - If you actually go and take a look at that category that you linked above, I would say that around 99% of the entries are relating to visits that were made by heads of state or government. Also, there exists an article on Wikipedia titled "List of current heads of state and government", so the significance of this detail has definitely not been randomly made up by me, but is rather a part of Wikipedia's pre-existing standards. Furthermore, most of the articles in the category that you linked are titled something like "list of prime ministerial visits by Joe Shmoe" or "list of presidential visits by Jane Doe". Only a few of the articles are titled "list of visits by Joe Shmoe" or "visit to Valhalla by Jane Doe", and this is only when that person happens to be the No. 1 highest-ranked VIP in the country, usually the president or the monarch or the dictator. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

As for Nancy Pelosi's position as U.S. House speaker being comparatively more significant than dozens of heads of state/government positions in various less powerful countries around the world, I personally will not stand for American exceptionalism. We should not give weight to Nancy Pelosi simply because she's an American. Otherwise, we'd have to do the same for the Chinese, for the Russians, etc. It's just a slippery slope that I don't want to go down, and I think others will agree with me. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

By "why does head of state/government matter", I mean that if a person is not a head of state/government, it does not mean that his/her position must be added to the title of Wikipeda article about his/her diplomatic visit. And what I said above has nothing to do with American exceptionalism. Top officials of big countries, including China, Russia, and the U.S., are often more notable, worldwidely, than those of small counties. This is, maybe sad, reality. We cannot argue that the position of a head of state/government in the world does not need to be mentioned in Wikipedia article title, while that of Nancy Pelosi does.--Neo-Jay (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

...if a person is not a head of state/government, it does not mean that his/her position must be added to the title of Wikipeda article about his/her diplomatic visit. - On the contrary, I would argue that it DOES matter, because the standards of Wikipedia are already aligned in favour of only discussing diplomatic visits by heads of state or government, primarily because it's generally abnormal for someone other than that to perform an official diplomatic visit (aside from, of course, leaders of secessionist groups, terrorist organizations, and other non-state organizations). Indeed, this August 2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan has got to be one of the strangest diplomatic visits to have ever been recorded on Wikipedia throughout the website's 22-year history, because, as I said, it was not performed by a leader of a country, although it was still significant enough for an independent article to be created (rather than adding the information directly to Nancy Pelosi's Wikipedia article). Furthermore, as I've already pointed out, most articles about diplomatic visits do actually say "prime ministerial" or "presidential". A decent chunk of them just say the leader's name without mentioning their title, but this is usually when they are the No. 1 highest-ranked politician in the country, and also usually when they are some kind of a historic figure that everyone and their dog's grandmother knows. So, I disagree with the notion that Nancy Pelosi's Taiwan visit article can be just shrugged off with its original title. Indeed, as it stands, Pelosi's Taiwan visit article is currently listed in the main area of Category:Diplomatic visits, rather than in one of the subcategories. Which, as you will notice, are almost all falling under either Category:Lists of diplomatic visits by heads of state‎ (alternative) or Category:Diplomatic visits by heads of government‎. There are other categories for "by destination" (mostly lists of diplomatic visits by various world leaders to the US, plus some other niche topics) and "by nationality of visitor". Most of the other articles that fall outside of the subcategories (i.e. in the same area as the Pelosi visit to Taiwan) are "lists of visits by a United States Secretary of State", such as by Anthony Blinken, who is indicated as the Secretary of State (List of international trips made by Antony Blinken as United States Secretary of State). There are also some general articles in the main area, e.g. "State visit", "Summit (meeting)", and "Iron diplomacy". Notably, the two unique articles "Kim–Xi meetings" and "Kim–Putin meetings" can also be found in the main area. So, overall, based on the overwhelming evidence that I've provided here, I can confidently say that the numbers are on my side. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The notability of a diplomatic visit is determined case by case, not categorically by the visitor's position. A diplomatic visit was included in Category:Diplomatic visits because it was notable, not simply because it was made by a head of state/government. Most diplomatic visits by a head of state/government were not notable enough to have their stand-alone Wikipedia articles (not lists). And a diplomatic visit by a person who is not a head of state/government, e.g., this 2022 Nancy Pelosi's visit (acknowledged by you), may be notable enough to have a stand-along Wikipedia article. As long as the 2022 Nancy Pelosi's visit was notable enough to have a stand-alone Wikipedia article, the title of the article should, like those of other stand-alone Wikipedia articles (not lists) about diplomatic visits by heads of state/government, have just the name of the visitor, and not include her position. --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

...(acknowledged by you)... - Obviously, I call it "2022 Nancy Pelosi visit" for brevity in speech. But the full-length title that I've proposed is still "2022 visit by U.S. House speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan". As for this visit by Nancy Pelosi being notable, I will say that it's not notable in the "grandiose" sense, at least not at the moment, but instead in the "trivial" sense. The event has definitely received news coverage over the past few days (having taken place only a few days ago), but it hasn't actually had any profound implications just yet (aside from Chinese threats, which haven't resulted in direct military confrontation just yet). People are waiting to see what will happen next, but so far, any predictions are CRYSTAL. The Nixon article that you linked above is much longer than the Pelosi article and much more profound. This article basically doesn't have a whole lot of interesting information at the moment; it just has an overview of the event that occurred (i.e. Pelosi visiting Taiwan), with a few comments of speculative analysis about its implications. In any case, I don't agree with your comments since I classify this event as belonging to Category:Diplomatic visits, regardless of who was conducting the visit. And given that it belongs to that category, it is only correct to apply the same rules to this event as we do to the majority of the other articles within that category, which includes specifying in the title that Nancy Pelosi was not actually the president of the United States but rather held the rank of House speaker. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

It's just your personal point of view that this visit was only notable in the "trivial" sense. And it does not make sense that the title of an article about a diplomatic visit that is notable in the "trivial" sense should include the visitor's position. As long as a diplomatic visit, no matter whether it was made by a head of state/government, was notable enough to have a stand-alone Wikipedia article in Category:Diplomatic visits, it should be treated the same as other articles in that category. And the rules of Category:Diplomatic visits are clear: the title of a stand-alone article (not a list) does not need to include the visitor's position. Whether the visitor was/is a head of state/government is irrelevant. --Neo-Jay (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

It's actually fairly relevant for one important reason. Joe Biden, the president of the United States, didn't actually endorse the meeting, and it was instead conducted unilaterally by Nancy Pelosi. However, because it's Taiwan we're talking about here, which is an unrecognised state, obviously Taiwan treated it as an official diplomatic visit by the U.S. government, even though it was actually only a faction of the U.S. government that was visiting. And, obviously, China, being trigger-happy, was also infuriated by the visit even though it wasn't endorsed by the U.S. president. So, both China and Taiwan regard the visit as an official state visit by the United States (infuriating China and pleasing Taiwan), whereas Joe Biden's administration in the White House has openly denied being responsible for the visit and has instead placed all of the blame on Nancy Pelosi. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

This reminds me of a meme that I saw on Reddit a few years ago. In the meme, ISIS is reading out all of the countries that they have declared to be their enemies. Within the list, Taiwan is mentioned. When Taiwan sees this in the news, they begin crying tears of joy "ISIS recognises Taiwan as a country!". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Whether Joe Biden endorsed this visit is irrelevant to the article-title issue. Why should the title include the visitor's position when Biden did not endorse the visit, and not when Biden did? --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

If Biden endorsed the visit, then it is basically a "state visit" conducted by the United States on an official basis. However, as I've explained, this visit by Pelosi wasn't really official (it was quasi-official) since she wasn't representing the United States government to a 100% degree.

So, if this were a visit by Biden, hypothetically, I would support calling it either "2022 visit by Joe Biden to Taiwan" or "2022 presidential visit by Joe Biden to Taiwan", or "2022 state visit by Joe Biden to Taiwan".

However, in the reality of the situation, as I said, it is improper to describe this as a "state visit" when it has been conducted unilaterally by Nancy Pelosi. So, we can't call it that. There is also not really an adjective for "House secretary", so we just have to use that term directly. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I've actually identified quite a lot of articles on Wikipedia that include the term "state visit", rather than just "visit" (usually pertaining to a presidential or prime ministerial visit, rather than by a lower-ranked official).

China --> State visit by Xi Jinping to Pakistan, State visit by Xi Jinping to the United Kingdom, State visit by Deng Xiaoping to the United States, State visit by Xi Jinping to the United States, State visits by Xi Jinping to Italy and France, State visit by Jiang Zemin to Japan.

Taiwan --> Republic of China (Taiwan) 9–13 July 2002 state visit to the United States of America.

Others --> Kalākaua's 1874–75 state visit to the United States, State visit by Elizabeth II to the Republic of Ireland, State visit by Ngo Dinh Diem to the United States, Ngo Dinh Diem presidential visit to Australia, State visit by Fidel Castro to Chile, State visit by Nikita Khrushchev to the United States, State visit by Pope Francis to Kenya, State visit by Pope Francis to the Philippines, State visit by Liaquat Ali Khan to the United States, State visit by Michael D. Higgins to the United Kingdom, State visit by Pope Benedict XVI to the United Kingdom, Mahendra's state visit to the USA.

All of these are actual articles on Wikipedia, but I haven't hyperlinked any of them for the sake of ease of reading. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Not mentioning "U.S. House Speaker" in the article title does not in any way imply that this visit was endorsed by Biden or it was a state visit. Why should we add "U.S. House Speaker" to the article title simply because the visit was not endorsed by the president? No matter whether Biden endorsed it, this was Nancy Pelosi's visit. Clear enough. And by the way, a state visit is a visit by a head of state (and not all visits by a head of state can be called state visits; only the most formal ones can). A house speaker's visit, even if it is endorsed by the president, is not a state visit. --Neo-Jay (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The original title "2022 Nancy Pelosi visit to Taiwan" actually does imply that it was an official state visit. Indeed, as far as I can tell, nowhere in the article does it say that this wasn't an official state visit. You are basically hearing it first from me now. I think this is because a lot of the people who have contributed to writing this article have only been focusing on news snippets, rather than on actually identifying exactly what is going on here from a legal perspective. With that being said, I did identify a political analysis article by CNBC earlier (reposted here: Source) that discusses in substantial detail the fact that this visit wasn't actually endorsed by Biden. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: With that being said, the reception from Taiwan was definitely official at the state level, given that Tsai Ing-wen herself received Nancy Pelosi. So, the visit was state official from Taiwan's end but not from the United States' end. There was a bit of a misunderstanding, it seems. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the other article about a "state visit" involving Taiwan that I listed above (the one with a really long title) described that event as a "state visit" even though the highest-ranked individual from the Taiwanese side in that visit was merely the Taiwanese Minister of Justice, whereas his American counterpart was the United States Attorney General. Neither party was a head of state in that scenario. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstand the meaning of state visit. State visits are the most formal visits by a head of state (not a house speaker). Besides state visits, a visit by a head of state can be "an official visit, an official working visit, a working visit, a guest-of-government visit, or a private visit". Article title "Republic of China (Taiwan) 9–13 July 2002 state visit to the United States of America" is problematic and there is no reliable source calling that visit a "state visit". Probably you mean to talk about official visit. But no matter whether the 2022 Pelosi's visit was official, there is no need to add "US House speaker" to the title. --Neo-Jay (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Then how else do you suggest to indicate that Pelosi's visit was non-official? Indeed, I would suggest that you read thoroughly that political analysis article that I linked to you, since it explains in-depth why Pelosi's visit was not state-sanctioned. The article also explains that China does not see it the same way as the United States, instead viewing Pelosi as acting directly on behalf of the United States, even though Joe Biden and other White House officials deny this. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Essentially, the de facto situation is this:

Who views Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan as a state visit?

- United States --> This is not a state visit. It was unilaterally conducted by House speaker Nancy Pelosi, and president Joe Biden had no direct say in the matter.

- Taiwan --> This is certainly a state visit. The third-highest-ranked government official of the United States met president Tsai Ing-wen in person to discuss the everlasting friendship between Taiwan and the United States.

- China --> TAIWAN IS NOT A REAL COUNTRY, but the United States is pushing the envelope by conducting an illegal state visit with our renegade province of Taiwan! The United States has absolutely no right to conduct a state visit with the so-called authorities of the Taiwan Province. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not need to consider whether this visit was official or non-official. As I said above, not matter whether it was an official visit or not, there is no need to add "US House speaker" to the title. And who says that Taiwan and China consider this visit a state visit? Could you provide a reliable source? I think that you once gain confuse "state visit" (國是訪問/国事访问) with "official visit" (官方訪問/官方访问). --Neo-Jay (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The source that I provided you from the American perspective says that the Chinese have likely interpreted the situation in such a way (obviously, they don't know exactly what the Chinese have interpreted). The Chinese have reacted severely to Nancy Pelosi's visit because they view the visit as a concerted American effort to undermine China's sovereignty, whereas the Americans are objecting to this view because they say that it's merely a unilateral action by Pelosi that has nothing to do with the White House. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

As for the definition of a "state visit", I would say that a state visit doesn't necessarily have to have all of those distinctive features like a 21 gun salute. That's merely a custom that has developed over time (where? when? no idea). A state visit can be defined by the two parties (the guest and the host) however they deem fit. There's no point in arguing what an "official" visit is. Nancy Pelosi's visit was official in many ways, such as by being officially received by Tsai Ing-wen, or by being officially conducted by Nancy Pelosi (honestly, "official" is a buzzword at this point). On the other hand, to argue that Nancy Pelosi's visit was "state" (i.e. state-sanctioned, which is what I mean), is to argue that Nancy Pelosi's visit was approved by the White House and even by Joe Biden himself, which it wasn't. So, Nancy Pelosi's visit was NOT state-sanctioned (or state official), but China does not view the situation in the same way, since China thinks that Joe Biden and the White House have orchestrated this visit as part of their grand strategy to contain China. In reality, Joe Biden has not really played much of a major role in this visit, and it was mostly Nancy Pelosi's own decision. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

So you do not provide any reliable source calling this visit a state visit. Instead, you create your own dictionary to define what a state visit is. And I don't see any reason why the visitor's position should be added to the article title if the visit is not endorsed/sanctioned/approved by the head of state. I find that we live in different universes and cannot understand each other. It's pointless to me to continue this discussion with you. I will not spend my time on replying to you any more. Have a nice day. --Neo-Jay (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The source I provided was the American one. In the American source, it says that the Chinese have likely interpreted the visit as state-sanctioned by the US government, even though Joe Biden and the White House didn't approve of it. In any case, I do not expect any replies from you, so please do not respond to this message. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Quote: "Now, experts say it’s becoming clear that this effort missed the point. That’s because schisms in Washington are effectively meaningless to the rest of the world, which has learned to view American presidents and their top allies in Congress as interchangeable stand-ins for one another on foreign policy matters." <-- Emphasis mine

Effectively, the article is saying that China views Nancy Pelosi as an "interchangeable stand-in" for Joe Biden. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:OFFICIALNAME, the fact that 5 other democrats attended (no Republicans were invited) and because this was a US Airforce flight not some Nancy Pelosi sojurn. If it matters that much, make it the August 2022 United States congressional delegation visit to Taiwan]]. For some similar examples, see Trump-Putin meeting which redirects to a more factual and neutral title. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Have you actually read WP:OFFICIALNAME? It states that using official name, "[i]n many cases, [..] is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy", and is "a very easy mistake to make, and a very common one." And it clearly states that "[o]fficial English names [...] should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used" (emphasis added). Obviously, when the common name is different from the so-called official name, the common name should be used. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I will add that your level of hostility towards users in this discussion, not just me but also others, is uncalled for. Quote: Have you actually read WP:OFFICIALNAME? - The tone that you are using here is condescending, without any prior reason apart from "I disagree with the viewpoint of this other person". Please be respectful towards others in discussions such as these, regardless of whether you agree with their views or not. This requested move discussion was started by you, so you especially hold this responsibility of civil behaviour. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I have revised my words you quoted. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to respectfully address an inaccuracy in your comment regarding no Republicans being invited. In fact, Michael McCaul was invited but had to turn it down ([3], [4]). Though I fully understand that this doesn't necessarily refute the point you are making and I will update the article to include this information. Kind regards, WeirdMatter (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

...not some Nancy Pelosi sojurn. - I definitely agree with this sentiment. The old title of "2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan" does not at all indicate what the significance of her visit was, or who she even is. Whoever wrote that title was basically just presuming that anyone who comes across this article will already automatically know who Nancy Pelosi is and why her visit is important, or that they would read the contents of the article to find more information.

It is important to point out that this meeting was not conducted at the request (or with the approval) of Joe Biden but was rather a unilateral move by Nancy Pelosi and her affiliates within the Democratic Party. Despite Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi both belonging to the Democratic Party, the party is obviously factional and neither Biden nor Pelosi has absolute authority over the other. Essentially, the visit was not 100% state-sanctioned by the government of the United States but was instead unilaterally executed by a more radical faction of the ruling party of the United States. That faction nonetheless had access to government resources, i.e. the government plane and the various government-affiliated individuals involved in the tour, but they did not fully represent the United States government itself, hence this visit cannot be fully described as a "state visit". EDIT: Source. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom and WP:OFFICIALNAME. WP:OFFICIALNAME in a nutshell is "common names are generally preferred over official names". If you look at the titles of the 85 cites used in the article, not one of them AFAICS mentions the delegation or any of its members other than Pelosi, and 64 (75%) mention Pelosi. It seems to me the common name of this event as far as the RS media is concerned is something like "2022 Pelosi visit to Taiwan", supporting the change of name to the similar WP oriented name proposed. Rwendland (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  The visit is commonly referred to as the "2022 US House speaker Pelosi visit to Taiwan" as well in news reports. Not as frequently as the shorter title, but still to a decent degree. EDIT: Ex. 1, Ex. 2, Ex. 3 Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The current version has 91 references, of which 64 titles only mention Pelosi's name (not including her position), 8 mention "speaker", and 19 mention neither the name nor the position. Obviously the common name only includes Pelosi's name, and does not include her position.--Neo-Jay (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, as I've pointed out before, there's a fine line between "common name" and "precision" (or "official name"). The viewpoint that you can 100% discard precision in favour of the common name is misguided. The common name should be used as a guideline for coming up with the article's title, rather than as the be all and end all. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

2022 US House speaker Pelosi visit to Taiwan is neither the common name nor the official name. What naming convention is your argument based on? --Neo-Jay (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that it's simply an extension of the common name, with additional details added for precision. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

For the record, it is sometimes best to ignore all rules (WP1, WP2). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Exceptional circumstances call for exceptional measures. As I have said several times, this "Pelosi visit to Taiwan" event is almost one of a kind. There is almost nothing else like this article on Wikipedia, except for maybe that other diplomatic visit article that involves Taiwan and the United States (but going in the other direction). Given that Taiwan is an unrecognized state that doesn't have official diplomatic relations with the United States, this incident can be regarded as a sui generis ("of its own kind") case. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The "extension of the common name, with additional details added for precision" is not a valid rule. And I am not convinced that we should ignore all rules in this case, which is just as normal as other articles. And I do not think that you can convince the Wikipedia community. Best regards. --Neo-Jay (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I never said it is "a rule". Indeed, it's a combination of two rules, those being "common name" and "precision". On Wikipedia, it is possible (and common!) to combine two rules into one where necessary. Each rule is not the Gospel, and there are heaps of rules that contradict one another. Where applicable, it is possible to compromise. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you call it, it (so-called "combination of two rules") is not convincing. Wikipedia guidelines may not be the Gospel, but are more authoritative than something created by you. I do not think that you can convince me. Don't wast time on me. Thank you. --Neo-Jay (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Combining two rules isn't something that I made up. It's something that Wikipedia editors do literally all the time. If you're using one rule, and then you're using another rule, and you're using them at the same time, then you are combining two rules by default. Bravo. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You misinterpret rules and put your personal preference above Wikipedia guidelines. But I do not think that I can change your mind. I will not type more words to try to convince you. And you also cannot convince me. So, again, don't wast time on me, please. This is my last reply to you. Best regards. --Neo-Jay (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That's not a misinterpretation, that's the correct way to interpret the rules. There is no rule that says you can't follow more than one rule at once. Please do not reply to this message. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The vast majority of sources cited in the article give emphasis to Pelosi in their headlines and article body. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 16:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Various news articles also give emphasis to Pelosi's status as the United States speaker of the House, which is important because Joe Biden, the president of the United States, didn't actually endorse this trip. However, he didn't have the authority to stop Nancy Pelosi from taking the trip due to the separation of the branches of government. My alternative title for this article is 2022 visit by U.S. House speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME.Yeungkahchun (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. These moves are becoming part of a disruptive pattern to move the pages simply because one user or another user doesn't like the name of the title and thus believes their move can be done without discussion. That's now how this works. The latest user to move this article misstated how official names work. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, we need to avoid confusion with the half dozen other United States congressional delegations which visited Taiwan in 2022. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support modification of 2022 Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan per WP:CONCISE. I don't think we need to have "by" in the title, unless it's a Wikipedia convention to add "by" to personal visits in the article title. Wei4Earth (talk, contribs) 04:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  The title of the Wikipedia article about the 1972 Richard Nixon's visit to China is "1972 visit by Richard Nixon to China" although I am not sure whether it is a convention. --Neo-Jay (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Personally I like this one more too. If there isn't a convention about the name I would chose this one.AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Makes sense. I think the Nixon article isn't necessarily the authority on what to call these types of articles. Are there very many other articles styled after the Nixon one? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. --Yinyue200 (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support modification of 2022 U.S. House Speaker's visit to Taiwan per WP:PRECISION. Several U.S. congressional delegations (Representatives, Senators, or mixed) visit Taiwan each year. There were visits by U.S. Congress members as well this year. So the current title is inappropriate. After handing the gavel to Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker Paul Ryan also led a delegation to Taiwan and met Taiwanese President Tsai in April 2019. Rep. Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan in 1999. This 2022 trip's key and unique meaning is her position as the incumbent U.S. House Speaker. --Wildcursive (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support. This visit is led by and overwhelmingly associated with Pelosi (not the rest of her delegation), and as others have stated, the current title is too ambiguous. As a comment on the discussion itself, the replies to the third vote have been indented enough to become utterly unreadable on WP's mobile interface. Use of {{outdent}} is very much in order. Glades12 (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support- Support the nomination. The article is about her visit, not the US Congress even though there were other people with her. RayAdvait (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ban on 100 Taiwanese food exporters 1 August

I have reverted a removal of a sourced sentence from a single-article editor about the 1 August ban on Taiwanese food exports. The edit summary said that 1) it would be better to start a new paragraph detailing China's economic reactions and 2) the statement is false as the ban was after, not before, the visit. I have no real problems with the first statement and would support a paragraph on the timeline of the bans. However, for the second statement, multiple reliable sources, including the Bloomberg source that was cited, note that the ban was imposed Monday, i.e. 1 August, i.e. before the visit and I don't think that reliably sourced material should be deleted like that. If there are other reliable sources contradicting the 1 August date for the 100 food exporter ban, then we can include that as well. WeirdMatter (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

US State Department Response

This is the crux of the matter. If someone reverts or deletes it, please restore. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken issued this statement:

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.

Thanks, Jaredscribe (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it's important to point out that China had almost certainly been planning the military exercises months in advance, and simply used Nancy Pelosi's visit as an excuse to put on a display of military might. The exercises didn't just spontaneously occur as a reaction. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Please include that in the article with reference to sources. The causes of the military exercise were much more profound than Pelosi's visit Jaredscribe (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Jargo may be confusing the two ideas: that the PLA had contingencies in case they need to be exercised, which is plausible, versus their actual timing and exeuction, which are reactions to Pelosi's visit. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You need to remember, as I've pointed out on the other article's talk page, that China already knew that Pelosi was visiting Taiwan beforehand, at least a week or so earlier, and up to several months earlier. So, the idea that China "suddenly" mobilised their troops is false. China had plenty of time to calculate their moves, and nothing was left to chance. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of your original research, even if China had preparations, actually carrying them out was still a reaction to Pelosi's visit.

Johnson, Jesse (3 August 2022). "Pelosi becomes highest-ranking U.S. official to visit Taiwan in 25 years". The Japan Times. 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 ...

Sprunt, Barbara; Feng, Emily (2 August 2022). "Pelosi has landed in Taiwan. Here's why that's a big deal". NPR. ... 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.

WikiwiLimeli (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Do we need to duplicate the statement of Sos Blinken.? HurricaneEdgar 06:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

References