• 1rre
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    vor 1 Jahr

    Although the ADIZ covers parts of China’s Fujian and Zhejiang provinces in its northwestern part, PLA flights in those areas are not reported as incursions unless they flew within the 12-mile territory limit or median line between the outer islands controlled by ROC forces and mainland China.

    • zephyreks@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      vor 1 Jahr

      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.

      • 1rre
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        vor 1 Jahr

        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

        • zephyreks@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          vor 1 Jahr

          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.