-2
China sends aircraft, vessels toward Taiwan days after US arms sale approval
(www.indiatvnews.com)
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
-2 points (0.0% liked)
World News
32317 readers
822 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wikipedia is not a source.
[citation needed]
Here's the source on Taiwanese ADIZ, as well as what parts of Taiwanese ADIZ are accepted by the US (and thus, what the US will report on): https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2939%26context%3Dils&ved=2ahUKEwiGoKKS3PqAAxXDD0QIHYVzDg0QFnoECBAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0FmfTWzQ9XNfwfTL-qwUs5
Notably, Taiwan's ADIZ that crosses over mainland China is not recognized by the US, BUT, US recognition of Taiwan's ADIZ is neither at the median line nor at Taiwan's 12-mile territory limit. This is clearly visible in the middle and northwestern corners of where the US recognizes Taiwan's ADIZ, which, as you will note, are not at the median point between the two bodies.
Wikipedia is a source unless you're writing an academic paper or for Wikipedia. It's far more accurate than most news sites and for the most part immune to political bias, as the only way it can be biased is to exclude things but if you do then someone else will just add them in
I just showed that the source given went directly against what was being said in the comment
There's a guy who has like 1/3 of the edits on Wikipedia who is an open anti-communist lol.
Nice necromancy you been practicing?
Went to your profile, saw something I disagree with, posted because autism. shrug
Except, it's really not. Your quote from the Wikipedia article is unsubstantiated conjecture with no source that supports the claim.
There's a reason Wikipedia isn't acceptable for academic papers: it's factually incorrect often enough to be a problem. It's specifically a problem for non-Western content because the vast majority of Wikipedia contributors speak English as their dominant (and often only) language and thus can only ever use English secondary or tertiary sources.