Talk:Chinese salami slicing strategy

Newspaper op-eds

As per WP:NEWSORG, all newspaper op-eds have to be attributed to their authors. Opinions cannot be stated as fact. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Misattribution

Source linked in first paragraph of section "Critique" cites analyst Crispin Rovere. While Rovere appears to be a creditable expert, the article referenced, https://qz.com/1007792/chinas-biggest-ally-in-the-south-china-sea-a-volcano-in-the-philippines/, does not contain any references to the argument that Chinese strategy is based on Go, American on poker, and Russian on Chess. In addition, this comparison is not a suitable argument for comparing or understanding distinct national approaches to geopolitical strategy in the context of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhampoaSamovar (talk • contribs) 15:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The article it should be citing is the one above it in the citation "https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/poker-chess-and-go-how-us-should-respond-south-china-sea", but I don't edit Wikipedia so I'll leave that to someone who won't mess it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.168.116.185 (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Comparing it to Go is just silly orientalist nonsense. Could America's foreign policy establishment be any lower? 2601:140:8900:61D0:D4B3:129C:4CFC:173 (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

 Removed OR comparing it to Go. If you see any other problems, please feel free to wp:BOLDly fix them, or bring it up on the talk page. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 00:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Tajikistan source

An edited collection published by CRC Press was tagged as "better source needed", and now it has been removed. Can somebody explain what the issue is with this source? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

It was not approved by the US state department, who presumably wrote this page and is trying to make the concept happen. It's meaningless nonsense. 2601:140:8900:61D0:D4B3:129C:4CFC:173 (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

State of the article

When I first came across this article, it was an appalling mess of OR, and editorial opinion asserted as fact. I have removed the most egregious examples of this, but as stands, this article could still use some cleanup. Problematic areas include

1. Assertions of opinion and theory as fact in several locations - including that China does engage in "salami slicing"
2. Grammatical issues - lots of places where the preposition are missing
3. wp:UNDUE weight placed on the opinions of so-called "China Hawks". Indeed, prior to my fixes, entire paragraphs asserted as fact, opinions attributed to one Chatterji SK, an Indian retired Brigadier. Less egregious examples may still be found.
4. Lack of respondent claims - perhaps under the balance problems stated already, but was not a single paragraph explaining the Chinese position on these claims. I have tried to balance these out (with proper attribution naturally), but there are still areas to be improved.

BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 00:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

On #3 the paragraph also seems to have been sourced to an article in The Diplomat. Please be more careful next time. Also our sources seem to say that China engages in Salami slicing, I’m not seeing it treated as theoretical or opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, #3 was in part supported by an article in the Diplomat - that does not necessarily mean that it was due to assert the view as if it were fact in wikivoice. The concerns about the sources stating that China engages in salami slicing as a fact is that this is a highly contentious assertion. The sources who make these claims are sources that by their own admission, are not necessarily approaching the topic from the perspective of a nonpartisan actor. RS requires us to clearly indicate in-text when a partisan source makes an assertion, which is what I have endeavoured to do. Best regards, BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 20:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Do we have any sources which say this is a highly contentious assertion or substantially challenge it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial here. "Salami slicing" is also the way the European powers built world-wide colonial empires in the 18th and 19th centuries. The Chinese empire too salami sliced its way into the frontier regions of Mangolia and Tibet. The term is new but the phenomenon is quite old. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Historical precedent

Red Flag (magazine)... carried an editorial (slighting the enemy) in October 1960 summarising/quoting Mao Zedong's words— "[...] It is necessary to split the enemy and be skillful in making use of the enemy's contradictions to smash the enemy piecemeal [...] (Comrade Mao Tse-tung)" pp.107.
Does this sound a little like salami-slicing? DTM (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It can mean all kinds of things. China is actively engaged in breaking the ASEAN, EU, NATO and even the Quad. (Remember that the Quad almost died before finding a new lease of life last year.)

Looking at the Debt-trap diplomacy issues lately, I find China's games all over the place, even in splitting up the scholarly community into camps. Pro-China schoalrs pop out of nowhere, and start making arguments that seem to be reproductions of the CPC propaganda pamphlets. Even world-renowned scholars among them. "It is simply not true", "it is a big lie", "it is a myth", "it is meme" and so on. Mind boggling! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: It sounds more like divide and conquer to me. Yug (talk) 🐲 10:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

New source (2021)

• What Game Theory Says about China’s Strategy https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/13/opinion/game-theory-china.html

References

Clarification needed tag (June 2022)

Highlighted blurb doesn't even make sense. "Provocations" to which country? And what "larger action or result in China's favor"? Also, does "difficult or unlawful" mean that the "difficult" thing -- whatever the hell that is; again, nobody seems willing to say -- is in fact lawful? If so, who the hell has the right to complain??? In short, it's garbage, but I'm fine with it staying highlighted as garbage from now until Amerikkka decides it wants to "win" a nuclear war. 174.95.58.122 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

POV (June 2022)

Of 70 citations,EVERY SINGLE ONE is blatantly anti-China, with some sources funded directly by the Amerikkkan state, including the bemusingly named "United States Institutes of Peace". Additionally, try to find a single example of China's side of the story being presented at all. This is not encyclopedic, but sensational propagandist trash.

If someone were to make an example article of how not to write an article, it would only be half as bad as this, because this level of bad is un-frickin'-believable. IMO, this entire namespace should be OBLITERATED unless and until given attention by editors who both know Chinese nuance AND who give a damn about NPOV! 174.95.58.122 (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

P.S. No mention of United States Seventh Fleet "freedom of navigation exercises" among your so-called provocations, eh? Hmph. 174.95.58.122 (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I have removed your POV template. In order to claim there is a POV, you need to first read and understand what is meant by WP:NPOV. In order to claim POV, you need to demonstrate that there is significant section of published reliable and third-party literature that is not represented here. You should also read the instructions at Template:POV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Where do you get this nonsense??? No, Nazi. That's not how that works, and things aren't "drive-by" because you don't like them. IP gave a reason above, you didn't likey and reverted with your sock account. Yes, it's that obvious. 142.188.181.113 (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)