Talk:Quadrilateral Security Dialogue

Article review

I was asked to review this article on March 18, 2012, and here is a summation of my impressions:

• The article is a great start. It is written in reasonably good prose. It is well cited, but lacking in URLs, which can be useful for fact-checking.
• The "analysis" segment can use some more sources from all countries involved - currently much of the sourcing links to Australian newspapers. It would be great to get the perspective from India, Japan, and China on this issue.
• The article can expand on what, if anything, concrete has come out of this 'dialogue' - white papers, joint declarations, military exercises, etc. etc. The results need to be clear.
• Try to avoid pipe-linking - since printed versions of the article will not reflect the link. Direct references are better. Prime example is the word 'some' under the "strategic framework" paragraph, which is linked to "Center for a New American Security." Same thing for "some within the American State Department" which links to Morton I. Abramowitz.
• The headings can use more succinct (shorter) titles. Also, Rudd's 'departure' and Gillard's 'return' can probably use better titles. "Rudd's departure" sounds like it is referring to the man's downfall in Australian politics instead of its withdrawal from the QSD.

That is all for now. A "B" rating is appropriate. Colipon+(Talk) 20:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I added URLs to references where possible. Some I couldn't find without LexisNexis, and I'm not up that hassle right now. I have not yet started actually reading these sources (though I remember reading the CNAS reports when they were first published), so no substantive comments for now. The one thing I would point out is that a lot of the newspaper sources are opinion articles. That's not problematic per se, but in general I'd like to see the article a little more densely referenced.Homunculus (duihua) 22:12, 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.

• “Some say” – Avoid this in general - instead write who is saying it. (Collipon made a similar comment.) Also, in most instances in the article, only one person or entity is referenced. If only one person is saying it, use “x says” instead of “some say”. If “some” people (more than one) are saying it, reference more than one person. Similarly mention the National Democratic Alliance (India) by name instead of referring to it as “an early Indian center-right coalition.” If this description of the Alliance is relevant to the article and widely accepted, it can be included as well.

• • A bigger job would be to give the reader some idea of the notability of the people and organizations giving opinions and the effects the expression of these opinions have had. Are these high level administration members whose opinions are expected to affect policy? Some random nut with a blog? A highly regarded university professor? A think tank whose opinions are commonly used to shape policy?

• The analysis section appears to be about opinions within the US on the quadrilateral agreement, and should be incorporated into the rest of the article alongside Indian and Australian opinions. Has there been a similar debate in Japan?
  • If other countries in the West Pacific (Indonesia, Vietnam, Taiwan, Korea, etc.), have expressed opinions, these should be included as well. Since China is thought to be the target of the agreement, China’s reactions should figure prominently in the article (they are).

• I share Colipon’s opinion that expanding on the concrete results of the agreement is a good idea. Since one concrete result has been the expansion of the joint military exercises, they probably deserve their own section in the article. Since they are covered in detail in a separate article, an overview with a link to that article would be appropriate. If there is evidence that sea lane safety has been improved, this would also be good to include.

On to smaller stuff:

• There are 2 opinions in the lead that need attribution:
  • “The arrangement is widely viewed…”. Who views it this way? Alternatively, what expert claimed that it was widely viewed this way?
  • “Reflecting ambivalence in Australian policy…”. Is it really ambivalence towards US-China tension that was the root? Who thinks so? It might be better to say “Australia left the Quadrilateral from (date) to (date) under Kevin Rudd’s tenure as Prime Minister and returned in (date) when Julia Gillard became Prime minister.” and leave the details for the body.

I see that these are covered in the body of the article, but I’m still uneasy when I see opinions without immediate attribution.

• Be consistent in the use of “then” and “former” (then-Vice President, former Prime Minister). Mixing them implies that John Howard was no longer Prime Minister when the dialog was initiated (former President Jimmy Carter has engaged in a lot of diplomacy since he left office). This can be tricky. My preference would be to leave off the thens and formers – if you’ve just mentioned that “the dialogue was initiated in 2007”, it should be clear that you’re talking about the offices they held at that time, and it’s probably not necessary to mention right there that Manhoman Singh is still Prime Minister.

• “Unprecedented” is a common peacock word. It might be better to say “The dialog was followed by an increase in scale of the joint military exercises between the four countries.” Also, I’m thinking it’s better to link “joint military exercises” to Exercise Malabar (or mention Exercise Malabar by name in the lead if you can fit it in) and that the link to “military exercise” is not necessary.

• Is the American defense industry earning money part of the controversy in India? This might be better mentioned in another section.

• Consider enlarging the map thumbnail so that Japan is visibly blue.

--Wikimedes (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

it is right to mention it as increasingly the aid to Ukraine, the urrent main military issue, is defended in the US by mentioning the jobs in the US defence industries which are generated. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:D0F5:BB52:2363:1F5D (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150610222015/http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2008/04/171_19480.html to http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2008/04/171_19480.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

"Historic adversaries"

"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)

It gets even worse than that. The infobox to the right of the article states "Established 2007-2008" for the first iteration, that would mean it ended in 2008. The "historic adversaries" sentence and its reference with the interview with Brendan Nelson is only from 2007, yet the sentence claims that the Quad already ended in 2007:

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.

Another sentence in the section timeline says that it ended in 2009:

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.

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):

The 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.

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 sentence

This position was reaffirmed under Howard's successor Kevin Rudd.

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.

References

I will attempt to fix the mentioned errors in this article. --2003:F6:2735:9400:3527:C113:9065:3C57 (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

French submarine

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.". 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)

• Actually France is not the member of Quad. But, please read the third paragraph carefully. Then, please read another source linked form "December 2020"; It was also relieved that France is to join the first joint military drills with Japan and US in May 2021. Got the relevance? Yasuo Miyakawa (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • To make the relevance visible, I will cite a little bit more of the source. Yasuo Miyakawa (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Sources, proseline, news

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)

• Good work for cleanup. Be careful in choosing the part to be omitted and excessive wrap up. Yasuo Miyakawa (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yasuo Miyakawa - thanks - I appreciate your adding material, it's been great. -Darouet (talk) 18:51, 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)

• Darouet - Regards to descriptions in March 2021, we understand Wikipedia:Proseline. However, it is just last month and these things are continuing. Usually in diplomatic field, things are reviewed at the timing of next milestone, typically an official high-level meeting. It may be too early to wrap up. Yasuo Miyakawa (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

"Second Cold War" section

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 agree. Perhaps rename to "Reforming the Quad" which would be fairly neutral as many sources indicate a reinvention/strengthening/reforming of the Quad. Morgengave (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Went bold and renamed the section for now. Thought it's more suitable (good or bad) than "Second Cold War". Perhaps someone else can change the section title to a better one? --George Ho (talk) 12:45, 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.

• From the Asia Times [1]:

  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.

  \*Nikkei Asia [2]:

  Japan will turn to Quad in 'new Cold War': Defense Ministry think tank

• From the US think tank "American Security Project" [3]:

  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.

• Al Jazeera quoting two political analysts [4]:

  “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,”

• From the South China Morning Post [5]:

  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.

• Newsweek quoting academic Jason Davidson [6]:

  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)

Advocacy editing and a "Free and Open Indo-Pacific"

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:

• twice in the lead,
• it is in the table of contents, and
• it appears in the article text or headings ten times altogether, not including use in the references.

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)

I do agree that the term was overused in the article, but I would assume good faith, and it didn't read as propaganda, just more of a style issue. If you consult the news sources used (or other news sources), you'll see that both the Quad governments and the news sources themselves use it a lot, which is perhaps not so surprising, seeing that the FOIP vision seems to be one of the uniting visions of the Quad members. Even European powers copied the term in their diplomatic parlance. Morgengave (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Morgengave for your reply. I purposefully didn't try to check who's been adding this phrase everywhere, nor who's been adding the links to government websites, because I don't want to accuse any editor specifically. But I did want to bring up the issue because the additions have been so recent, numerous, persistent, and so often tied to government (e.g. partisan) sources.

I agree with you that the use of the term in the media has increased recently, for the reasons you note. As of my edit [13], "Free and Open Indo-Pacific" appeared in the article three times and also had its own section dedicated to it. I think that's sufficient. Your subsequent addition [14] places this phrase one more time, and in the lead. I think that's OK, but we need to be careful about attribution. For instance the text you added state, 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)

Hi Morgengave - the material you added to the lead is a good example of what I'd describe as potentially problematic content: a whole number of phrases taken word for word from a White House document [15] and written in Wikivoice without quotation marks. I hope, therefore, you'll understand my rewording and the addition of quotation marks [16]. I've also added a Chinese response to the joint statement [17]. -Darouet (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind the quotation marks at all nor the Chinese reaction. I do think this sentence is too POV: "Renewed emphasis on the Quad has followed Trump's decision to enact "America first" tariffs leading to a China–United States trade war, and fears of a Second Cold War". It's first of all too US-centric and too Trump-centric and it seems to blame the US for a potential Second Cold War. The restart of the Quad is more an "alignment of planets" situation. Xi's assertive foreign policy played a major role. Next to this: Japan's diplomacy, Australia's changed political environment, the US under Trump for certain, and very importantly the point that India was finally open to it (the US and Japan had been lobbying India for it for a while, but as long as India said no, a new Quad couldn't start), following the 2017 border stand-off. I'll remove this sentence for now as at least it needs to be balanced/nuanced/expanded. Morgengave (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Morgengave: contra [18], the direct quote from the source [19] is, 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)

I'd prefer if we just paraphrased this rather than quoting directly, since the last paragraph now has quotation marks everywhere! -Darouet (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Darouet: There are plenty of reliable sources available that report about China's maritime claims. They are quite ubiquitous, but if you are not finding them, as per good general practice, I am of course happy to provide them. Saying that China has maritime claims isn't really controversial. Many Wikipedia pages do, see: Nine-dash line, Philippines v. China, Territorial disputes in the South China Sea, etc. That China has such claims is a fact. That the Quad rejects/opposes these claims is also a fact. Whether these claims are justified, would be an area where a wrong phrasing could bring a POV, but the lede doesn't talk about this. Morgengave (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I have just seen your edit now; I am fine with it. What's still missing from the lede is the part about "the Quad rejecting China's maritime claims". The "shared vision for a Free and Open Indo-Pacific," and a "rules-based maritime order in the East and South China Seas" now are not yet contextualized and I don't think they are understandable for an unfamiliar reader. Morgengave (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

How does this look [20]? -Darouet (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This is the term they use to sell the grouping to the populations. Objections to free and open are rare so it does the trick. India has cherished her block-free status and in recent years has done a tight rope act. One action that looks like tilting to one side is pretty soon matched by an action tilting to the other side. Defence alliances are also sales organisations for weapons and opening up the Indian market looks attractive, just like the Swedish and Finnish markets have been opened up recently. As an Australian I have always found it foolish of Australia to counter China. But if the goal is to prevent India becoming friendly with China, then the QUAD has been doing the trick, too. Our economy has been suffering, but we can sustain the economic situation for another while as long as we keep immigration low. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:3891:71DE:FB51:512F (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Removal of government links and random instances of FOIP

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)

I was bold and removed them. I am open to discuss if someone disagrees. Morgengave (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that's reasonable. -Darouet (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback on new article structure & titles

@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:

• Continued military exercises is not true; it's misleading as the continuation is not a Quad continuation, but only on a bi/trilateral level. It's also mostly a "start" of such joint exercises - see the many "firsts" in the content. Thirdly, it was not only military exercises, though admittedly the section should expand on this.
• Australia's policy shift is about much more than the Marines - there was a new government (no longer the Labour party which was focused on creating positive relations with China), yes, the marines, but also the uranium sales to India - honestly, the "Australia's policy shift" title much better covered the content.
• The Japanese policy change is more about lobbying the concept of a FOIP - they were trying to get other countries to join this; it's not so much about "assertiveness", but about getting others behind their FOIP vision through diplomacy
• Chinese section put at the end: doesn't make sense. Xi's much more assertive policy (vs Hu Jintao) contributed to India's renewed openness to the Quad idea and to some extent to the shifts of the other countries. So a logical/chronological order would put it higher

On the "Restarting the Quad":

• It's too US-centric to attribute the restart fully to Trump - Japan's diplomacy and India's renewed openness were also key
• Collaboration with Europe is part of the restart: hence that should be under the same header
• The header of "Asian NATO?" - I don't see the need for a separate section on this, but I don't oppose it either, but let us then make it a bit more formal, such as "Discussions about a defense pact"
• Biden didn't invite Europe to the Quad, but to the Indo-Pacific, which is very different. It's also not just Biden; Japan is also important in this "inviting" and perhaps even more so, so let us avoid a too US-centric view. It's also not correct to emphasize Biden as the European Indo-Pacific tilt started already in 2018 (at least for France and the UK) as you can read in the "Collaborating with allies" section.

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)

Hi Morgengave, I appreciate your feedback, and accept many of your criticisms, but I'm not always sure what the best solutions are. For that reason and to keep the discussion clear, I'm going to note the section title as it currently stands for each bullet so that we can follow this discussion more easily.

• Continued naval exercises - While I agree with you in principle that this section describes more than simply naval exercises, 75 % of the section describes nothing other than naval exercises. For this reason, I actually think we should keep this title, and change it only if more information is added that balances or shifts the section's focus. I would add that joint naval exercises have been at the heart of much of the Quad's history, and in that sense we're accurately describing it to readers with a title like "continued naval exercises."
• US Marines in northern Australia - I agree with you that this section title doesn't reflect the whole section by any means. In the past, I had written three section headings to cover this material in a more balanced way: Obama Administration and Gillard's return, Australian support, and US Marines in northern Australia. Because your proposal Australia's policy shift is accurate but very vague, I'd suggest instead, Gillard returns Australia to the Quad. What do you think? Do you have other suggestions? I think we should, perhaps, keep a separate heading US Marines in northern Australia for that one paragraph, as the article did in the past, as the stationing of US soldiers next to such a sensitive shipping diplomatic zone was a big move.
• Increased Japanese assertiveness - Morgengave, you correctly note that Japanese efforts here include trying to get other countries (not China obviously) to join in on the "Free and Open Indo-Pacific" concept. I think the section as titled does reflect that: the very first line is "Main article: Free and Open Indo-Pacific." But if you read the next line and the first line of section prose, it's about the opening of naval bases. In my view, the term "assertiveness" is a good middle between military bases on the one hand, and the diplomatic aspects described in the rest of the section, which themselves involve a military component (e.g. the "Security Diamond"). Do you have other ideas for neutral text that captures both these aspects of Japanese initiatives?
• Chinese foreign policy - I agree with you here, and I apologize for my error. In order to make text as a whole chronological, I think this section on China (2013) should go after the US and Japan (which mostly describe events in 2011-2012-2013), but before India (2017).
• Trump administration - Your point is valid. My thinking here was that Abe had been in power and promoting the Quad this whole time, but it wasn't until Trump was elected that it the Quad was reinvigorated. Furthermore, India remained, as before, a somewhat tepid partner. From the cited Nippon article [22]: 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.
• An Asian NATO? The reason I prefer this title over Discussions about a defense pact is that the phrase "Asian NATO" is being thrown around everywhere in the media now, and I think our article should reflect that in one of its sections. Furthermore, the title is evocative: everyone immediately knows what "Asian NATO" means practically. "Discussions about a defense pact" is technically accurate, but it misses this diplomatic dynamic that is achieved by referencing a very old military alliance on the other side of the world.
• Biden invites European powers to the Quad - I agree with you completely on this point. What about Biden and Suga invite Europe into the Pacific?
• European warships in the Pacific - While I agree that more is involved that just naval exercises, as many of the news articles make clear, the movement of naval vessels into this region is unprecedented in scale since WWII, and we definitely need a section on this aspect of the Quad. I don't mind if we spin out other sections, but I'd like a section specifically keep track of naval movements and exercises in the region under the broad umbrella of the Quad.

Let me know what you think. If you can Morgengave, maybe bold the section titles as you reference them so we can follow discussion for each point. -Darouet (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Darouet: My responses:

• • Initial title: Continued bi- and trilateral cooperation. That's exactly what happened here, so it's hard to come up with a very different title. I think the right action here is really to expand on the diplomatic content (I can work on this), rather than keep the changed title. I am not keen to narrow the title as it would put undue emphasis on the military element. The military element is a part of the whole, not the whole itself. The diplomacy was critical as it brought countries together with very different interests and relationships. So my proposal is to keep the initial title: Continued bi- and trilateral cooperation.
  • Initial title: Australia's shift in position. I am not in favor of splitting the Australian part into two sections. I believe we should aim to summarize the position of each country in one comprehensive, interconnected, easy-to-read whole - for the simplicity and the benefit of the reader. The shifts in Australia, of which the article already mentions three (a more China-sceptic foreign policy, stationing US marines, the go-ahead for uranium sales to India) all are part of the same policy shift coming from the new Australian government, they all bring Australia closer to the later restart of the Quad, so they belong together content-wise. Next to this, each country can easily have many multiple subsections (don't get me started on India!)- I don't think we should create separate subsections for them. I am not keen on your proposed title as it would imply that the "return to the Quad" was a policy goal at that moment in time, whereas it wasn't really discussed then. I still prefer the old title, but I can support Australia's shift in foreign policy, or Australia's foreign policy under the Liberal-National governments, which would then mirror the Chinese section title. (the marines are also foreign policy: they are American, and they are inspired by their weak northern flank vs China - i.e. they are not domestic politics).
  • Initial title: Japan's diplomacy towards a Free and Open Indo-Pacific. This covers the content perfectly. The Djibouti base just shows a tangible commitment to their FOIP vision (as it's in the Indo part of the Indo-Pacific; whereas they used to be oriented to the Asia-Pacific only). I haven't found sources calling the set-up of the Djibouti base assertive (which isn't that surprising as the US, China, India and France all have more bases than Japan in the region). I am not claiming that there aren't any sources claiming that this base is assertive, but they are for certain not the dominant view amongst reliable sources. So the current title likely carries an unintentional POV. That they had the FOIP vision and did a lot of diplomacy on it to get others on board is true. Seen the current centrality and criticality of this vision in the Quad, it's an absolutely key step towards the later Quad restart. So why not name the section what it is? So Japan's diplomacy towards a "Free and Open Indo-Pacific" or Japanese diplomatic efforts towards a "Free and Open Indo-Pacific" or Japan's vision of a "Free and Open Indo-Pacific". What I would add however, are the quotation marks to show it's a concept.
  • I am ok with the chronological ordering of China's section.
  • Initial title: Restarting the Quad. The US and Japan lobbied India in advance of its mid-2017 border standoff with China to restart the Quad, but India said "no". Only after that standoff, India became interested, and several months later, the Quad restarted, so attributing it solely to Trump is not correct. It was more a "coming together". Trump certainly played a key role as well, but he was not the only one. We could go two ways I think - first it's just calling it the restart like Restarting the Quad or Recreation of the Quad or secondly we could emphasize the specific moment of restart: 2017 ASEAN Summit.
  • "Asian NATO?" I think this is a bit sensationalist and may even mislead readers. Japan (Suga) f.e. explicitly said that the Quad won't be an Asian NATO. So there's no agreement on the Asian NATO element; there is however agreement amongst Quad members and observers that a potential defense pact is on the table. It's also wrong to assume that every reader knows what NATO means or entails, so from that pov the wording "defense pact" is still clearer. So I am still in favor of my proposal: Discussions about a potential defense pact or the alternative to just remove the section title.
  • I don't like the title Biden and Suga invite Europe to the Indo-Pacific. The reason is that it puts undue emphasis on this specific invite; there have been more diplomatic efforts and this one wasn't necessarily the most impactful. For example, this article in the Financial Times [23] questions the view that Biden had much impact on Europe's involvement in the Indo-Pacific (it started earlier than Biden and may have been more linked to concerns about Trump's isolationism), and it also highlighted the Indian and Australian diplomacy over the past year towards Europe (so preceding Biden), especially towards France. Why emphasize Biden and Suga and not these efforts? Also, don't forget that Macron already defined in 2018 its Indo-Pacific strategy, and already sent a ship in 2018, so much before Biden. For me, Biden and Suga's invite belong to the "Collaborating with allies" section (which you renamed to "European warships in the Pacific"). A second smaller reason is also that the current section breaks up the content unnecessarily and that section now contains content that either doesn't fit the title (the March bilateral meetings between some of the Quad members) or which causes duplication (the German-Japan bilateral was also covered and contextualized in the "Collaborating with allies" section, which initially belonged to the Restarting the Quad head-section. So my proposal: remove the section title (not the content), reintegrate within the European content, and reintegrate the European content within the restarting of the Quad.
  • Lastly, 1) I disagree with your split-off of the European-Canadian elements from the Restarting head-section; they belong together; this Eur-Can content doesn't belong to the first Quad or the intermission; it links with the restarted Quad. 2) I strongly disagree with your proposal to artificially split off the European and Canadian warships from their context; they belong together to their Indo-Pacific pivot. The Indo-Pacific tilt is very widely discussed as exceptional, and the ships follow the politics; the politics provide the context; the politics also show that the ships are only one pillar; the Quad members are also looking for broader support than the ships. My proposal is here to reintegrate this section within the restarting the Quad head-section and to restore to the Collaborating with allies or to the European and Canadian pivot to the Indo-Pacific. On a separate note, I think we should create a separate article on this pivot, which would also enable us to summarize it in the Quad article and highlight the most critical points - as the Eur-Can part now takes almost half of the article, whereas these countries aren't even in the Quad itself. Another benefit is that in the separate article, we can take the space to add the necessary historical background and analysis to it. Morgengave (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This Australian has seen things about the Quad in the media occasionally. We were never asked if we should be in that. It all happened. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:C558:A27F:D033:48A6 (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Replacing "Quadrilateral" with "Quad"

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)

Condense the article to reduce recentivism

To reduce the recentivism please undertake the following:

1. Move history of QUAD to a separate article which could either be called "outline" or "timeline" or "history" of QUAD.
2. Condense text and merge sections,
3. Move some of the "see also" items to the main body of text, perhaps in the "Background section" or across multiple sections" as separate "Related context" subsection
4. Create a footer template on QUAD.

Thank you. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Replicating QUAD model

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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Quad Alliance.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Military Alliance

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)

ip address 103.24.87.81 should be blocked from editing

this address is a frequent vandaliser of many pages. Anishssgj (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Formal challenge of move

@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)

The Quad is a grouping of four governments: Australia, India, Japan, and the United States. Its membership does not include journalists, pundits, the Chinese Communist Party, or Wikipedia editors. The four governments that constitute the Quad have named it the "Quad." Journalists may call it whatever they want, China may call an "Asian NATO," my uncle may call it a ham sandwich, but that doesn't change anything. Here are recent statements from the leaders of each of the four governments that call the grouping they established "the Quad":

https://www.pm.gov.au/media/quad-joint-leaders-statement

https://www.mofa.go.jp/fp/nsp/page1e_000401.html

https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/news_updates/quad-joint-leaders-statement/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/09/24/joint-statement-from-quad-leaders/

If you know of a "Quadrilateral Security Dialogue" where all the members call it a "Quadrilateral Security Dialogue," then start a new Wikipedia page about that group, whatever it is, because this page is about "the Quad."

If you insist on including a journalist's own preferred labeling of it, then state so precisely: "Sarah Martin, chief political correspondent of the Guardian, called the grouping a 'quadrilateral security dialogue.'" But the journalist is using terminology that is not consistent with the members' own terminology, and putting it in a footnote doesn't suddenly make it accurate. Thw128 (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME, if journalists consistently call it something odds are we're gonna do that too. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"quadrilateral security dialogue"

We have one newspaper article in the Guardian that uses the term "quadrilateral security dialogue" in lower case letters - i.e. it is NOT the name of something - and yet we have a Wikipedia article using that name as if it were officially endorsed. The newspaper states "Speaking after a meeting of the quadrilateral security dialogue (Quad) in Tokyo on Tuesday...." That does not make it the name of the group. Editors are encouraged to find a reliable secondary source either supporting, or rebutting, the current name of the article. 14.2.206.29 (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)