Jump to content

Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute/Archive 7) (bot
 
(33 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skiptotoc}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{notice|1=This talk page is only for discussion of the dispute over ownership of the islands; any discussion of the islands—outside of material directly relating to the dispute—should be discussed at [[Talk:Senkaku Islands]]. Thank you for your cooperation.}}
{{Notice|1=This talk page is only for discussion of the dispute over ownership of the islands; any discussion of the islands—outside of material directly relating to the dispute—should be discussed at [[Talk:Senkaku Islands]]. Thank you for your cooperation.}}
{{controversial}}
{{Controversial}}
{{ITN talk|19 August|2012}}
{{Copied|from=Senkaku Islands|from_oldid=389961837|to=Senkaku Islands dispute|to_diff=389961806|to_oldid=389961263}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Islands|class=c|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Islands}}
{{WikiProject Japan|class=c|importance=mid|geography=yes}}
{{WikiProject Japan|importance=mid|geography=yes}}
{{WikiProject Taiwan |class=c |importance=high }}
{{WikiProject Taiwan|importance=high }}
{{WikiProject China |class=c |importance=high}}
{{WikiProject China|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject East Asia|class=c|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject East Asia|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject International relations|class=c|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|b1=n|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|Japanese=y|Chinese=y}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|b1=n|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|Japanese=y|Chinese=y}}
}}
{{ITN talk|19 August|2012}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 7
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{Press
{{Press
Line 31: Line 21:
|archivedate=2013-02-12
|archivedate=2013-02-12
}}
}}
{{Copied|from=Senkaku Islands|from_oldid=389961837|to=Senkaku Islands dispute|to_diff=389961806|to_oldid=389961263}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 7
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{old move|date=22 September 2024|from=Senkaku Islands dispute|destination=Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1247116831#Requested move 22 September 2024}}

{{Archives|auto=long |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months }}
{{Archives|auto=long |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months }}


== External links modified ==
== The article is not neutral ==


<s>It leans heavily in favor of the Japanese side. We need it to be more balanced. [[User:Cioppino123|Cioppino123]] ([[User talk:Cioppino123|talk]]) 21:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)</s>
Hello fellow Wikipedians,


:These sorts of comments are more helpful if you can suggest a specific edit or raise a specific statement from a specific source you'd like to see incorporated. [[User:JArthur1984|JArthur1984]] ([[User talk:JArthur1984|talk]]) 22:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Senkaku Islands dispute]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=706847767 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
<s>::It refers to the islands as Senkaku almost exclusively. This means Wikipedia endorses Japan's claims. [[User:Cioppino123|Cioppino123]] ([[User talk:Cioppino123|talk]]) 18:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)</s>
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101010165613/http://akebonokikaku.hp.infoseek.co.jp:80/page092.html to http://akebonokikaku.hp.infoseek.co.jp/page092.html


== Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2024 (by Rkunstnc, who has fewer than 10 edits as a registered user) ==
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.


{{Edit semi-protected|Senkaku Islands dispute|answered=yes}}
{{sourcecheck|checked=true}}
Omit ungrammatical "the" before noun subjects "China" and "Taiwan" as follows:
1) Change "between Japan, the China, and the Taiwan" to "between Japan, China, and Taiwan"
2) Change "Both the China and the Taiwan" to "Both China and Taiwan"
3) Change "This is viewed by the China and Taiwan" to "This is viewed by China and Taiwan"
4) Change "an invitation from the China to work together" to "an invitation from China to work together" [[User:Rkunstnc|Rkunstnc]] ([[User talk:Rkunstnc|talk]]) 06:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> I removed all of these, thanks. [[User:Jamedeus|Jamedeus]] ([[User talk:Jamedeus|talk]]) 19:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


== Taiwan? ==
Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green;">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 16:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I know that for many purposes the Republic of China is known as Taiwan in English, but for a diplomatic dispute where both Chinese states are pursuing the Chinese claim, the full name of the state really should be mentioned in the lede and probably most uses of it. [[Special:Contributions/219.161.0.19|219.161.0.19]] ([[User talk:219.161.0.19|talk]]) 08:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)


== Requested move 22 September 2024 ==
== Lead sentence ==


<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, #000); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top -->
It seems pretty clear that most English news sources refer to this dispute as the Senkaku Islands Dispute (see for example http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27089658 http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/12/economist-explains-1 while making clear reference to the fact that China/Taiwan refer to these as the Diaoyu Island Dispute which is supported by Benlisquare has pointed out (although not explicitly saying Diaoyu Island Dispute the overall meaning is reflected in his literal translation. I think that it should be noted that the English speaking world generally refers to the conflict as the Senkaku Islands Dispute while Taiwan and the PRC refer to it as the Diaoyu Island Dispute (again, I think this accurately captures the meaning of Benlisquare's literal translation). As such, I think this should be reflected in the description as this describes the situation while remaining neutral and clarifying the two sides. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:LEDominator|LEDominator]] ([[User talk:LEDominator|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/LEDominator|contribs]]) 06:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|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: '''Not moved.''' <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closure by a page mover|closed by non-admin page mover]])</small> [[User:Vpab15|Vpab15]] ([[User talk:Vpab15|talk]]) 17:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
:Per the '''1RR''' notice above, now that the addition ''in China'' has been reverted, we should be working towards a consensus on this Talk page, rather than making changes to the article directly. - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] <sup>[[User talk:Ryk72|'c.s.n.s.']]</sup> 07:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
----


:There's no need to say ''Senkaku Islands dispute'' is translated from Japanese or ''Diaoyu Islands dispute'' is translated from Chinese. Just keep it simple. [[User:STSC|STSC]] ([[User talk:STSC|talk]]) 10:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
[[:Senkaku Islands dispute]] → {{no redirect|Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute}} – This move is supported by principles of WP:COMMONNAME, precision, naturalness, and NPOVtitle.


This article discusses a territorial dispute between China and Japan which has sometimes flared up. From the Chinese perspective, the islands are the Diaoyu islands. From the Japanese perspective, they are the Senkaku Islands. Our current title pre-supposes the Japanese perspective in Wikivoice.
== New Source ==


First, we should avoid this for principles of common name. Recent academic sources already in the article which use Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute include at a minimum Wang (2024), Chen (2023), and Zhao (2023). An initial review of English google results also shows our article to be an outlier, with most sources using both names for the disputed islands.
Tadayoshi Murata, ''The Origins of Japanese-Chinese Territorial Dispute'' (Tokyo: World Scientific, 2016). I noticed this hasn't been used yet, it supports the Chinese position but it uses a lot of evidence. '''[[User:Sturmgewehr88|<span style="background:black"><span style="color:red">ミーラー強斗武</span></span>]]''' ([[User_talk:Sturmgewehr88|StG88ぬ会話]]) 10:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


The move also helps precision, as the current title may be unclear to English-language readers general readers who may have first heard the Chinese usage but not be familiar with the Japanese usage yet.
== Warning about possible problems in this article ==


Finally, NPOV is served by not presuming the correctness of one view of the islands over another. Either Diaoyu/Senkaku or Senkaku/Diaoyu make sense - I think it is better to alphabetize so that no one presumes we are endorsing a claim, but at least in English I recognize that Senkaku/Diaoyu is more common order. The key point is to include both terms. [[User:JArthur1984|JArthur1984]] ([[User talk:JArthur1984|talk]]) 16:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
I have found two major problems in this article today, one being a sentence about the position of the US State Department and one about the attitude of Japanese government in the 1970's. From these two examples, I infer that this page may also have other problematic areas and I recommend that the article be thoroughly reviewed and checked by multiple experts at the earliest possible date, including the edits I made. I am not an expert in the specifics of this dispute, but the fact that I have seemingly discovered two major problems after a brief glance at the article is not a good sign. Thanks for any help. [[User:Geographyinitiative|Geographyinitiative]] ([[User talk:Geographyinitiative|talk]]) 09:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
: Discovered a similar situation on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Senkaku_Islands&diff=922173413&oldid=919755865 Senkaku Islands] page. [[User:Geographyinitiative|Geographyinitiative]] ([[User talk:Geographyinitiative|talk]]) 12:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
:: Removed scare quotes used in the lead section around the words 'private owner'. [[User:Geographyinitiative|Geographyinitiative]] ([[User talk:Geographyinitiative|talk]]) 23:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
::: Regarding the US position on the dispute, it does seem that several officials have stated that the US takes what they call a neutral position on the underlying sovereignty question. However, I think there needs to be some kind of official State Department statement, not a collection of quotations, to sustain the sentences I was reading here. There may be a better wording for those sentences. Again, I am no expert in this area but I think there should be very very clear wording about who said what when and who they represented. [https://file.wikileaks.org/file/crs/96-798.pdf A WikiLeaks document says] " the State Department asserted that the United States took a neutral position with regard to the competing Japanese and Chinese claims to the islands," I read this sentence (especially the word 'asserted') as a partial proof that the sentences I hid on these pages may be a little bit of an overstatement. [[User:Geographyinitiative|Geographyinitiative]] ([[User talk:Geographyinitiative|talk]]) 01:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


:'''Oppose'''{{snd}}one of the most basic principles we always stick to in our naming conventions is we pick <em>one</em> name for something that we deem most appropriate. We cannot avoid the responsibility of doing this by gluing two names together with a slash. Admittedly, this form is well attested in sources as described, but I do not see it as appropriate to treat it as one name when it is clearly two, with that usage arising from palpable dispute concerning its components. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 16:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
== Another possible source ==
::But in this article, the ''something'' is ''the dispute'', which as you recognize the ''Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute'' is well-attested and sourced. So this is not an original or artificial construction, but the way sources themselves speak in common name about ''the dispute''.
::The idea to 'pick just one' leads to a problem of circular logic and dispute. Surely you would agree then that the page should be re-named then to Diaoyu Islands dispute (I ask rhetorically)? When you disagree (as you would and should), you would cite one of my bases (common name), but the solution to common name is ''Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute'', which of course you agree is well-attested. [[User:JArthur1984|JArthur1984]] ([[User talk:JArthur1984|talk]]) 16:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::The form is common, which makes this distinctly more plausible than other cases. I don't think it amounts to a justification for picking two names—it simply does not plausibly read as one name for me, hard as I try—have we pondered opting for a phrasal name per [[WP:NDESC]]? Miraculously, I think it's true that this is the only active territorial dispute between China and Japan, so maybe some variation of [[China–Japan territorial dispute]] is in play? It feels like it it needs to be tweaked, but... <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 17:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Your suggestion would also be a manifest improvement in page title, although I view it as losing the advantage of common name and precision which I view as supporting my proposal. If move discussion goes in that direction however, it would still improve the current state and I would not be dissatisfied. [[User:JArthur1984|JArthur1984]] ([[User talk:JArthur1984|talk]]) 17:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::::The clear issue is that it's ambiguous with historical but potentially better known disputes, and I cannot for the life of me figure out a clean way to disambiguate it further... <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 17:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::"...in the East China Sea"? [[User:JArthur1984|JArthur1984]] ([[User talk:JArthur1984|talk]]) 17:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::First to come to mind, and really it probably is viable, but I got hung up on it being too many words, with one of them being "China". {{smiley|:p}} <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 17:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' as the proposed name is not a [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. The name should stick as close to the underlying [[Senkaku Islands]] article as possible for maximum [[WP:RECOGNIZABILITY]]. - [[User:Amigao|Amigao]] ([[User talk:Amigao|talk]]) 22:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>


== Out-of-date and primary source charts ==
Found this document from a Hong Kong university. {{cite web|last=Mathews|first=Gordon|url=https://www.hkiaps.cuhk.edu.hk/wd/ni/20181024-100007_1_hkiaps_op94.pdf|title=A Collision of Discourses Japanese and Hong Kong Chinese during the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands Crisis|publisher=[[Chinese University of Hong Kong]] [[Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies]]|date=May 1999}} [[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 01:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


I've removed the following charts, which are both out-of-date and sourced entirely to primary source documents by one of the disputing governments. This needs proper sourcing before being restored and it should be brought closer to up to date. Obviously it's in the page history but I'll also archive it here in case someone wants to undertake the project of making it suitable for the article:
== The article is not neutral ==


'''The number of Chinese vessels entering the territorial waters near the Senkaku Islands.'''<ref>{{cite web |title=The numbers of Chinese government and other vessels that entered Japan's contiguous zone or intruded into territorial sea surrounding the Senkaku Islands |url=http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/page23e_000021.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402104412/http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/page23e_000021.html |archive-date=2 April 2015 |access-date=18 March 2015 |publisher=Japan Coast Guard}}</ref>{{#invoke:Chart|bar-chart|group 1=0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 :
It leans heavily in favor of the Japanese side. We need it to be more balanced. [[User:Cioppino123|Cioppino123]] ([[User talk:Cioppino123|talk]]) 21:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 :
0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 2 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 :
0 : 0 : 1 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 4 : 0 : 13 : 19 : 15 : 21 :
17 : 17 : 11 : 25 : 15 : 9 : 14 : 28 : 22 : 8 : 12 : 10 :
6 : 9 : 6 : 8 : 5 : 6 : 4 : 10 : 10 : 9 : 8 : 7 :
8 : 8 : 9 : 9 : 9 : 8 : 7 : 6 : 9 : 7 : 8 : 7 :
8 : 5 : 9 : 9 : 11 : 9 : 9 : 23 : 8 : 8 : 12 : 10 :
10 : 7 : 10 : 12 : 12 : 12 : 12: 8 : 8 : 4 : 7 : 6 :
7 : 6 : 7 : 7 : 8 : 8 : 7 : 8 : 4 : 4 : 4 : 0 :
12 : 12 : 12 : 12 : 14 : 8 : 12 : 12 : 4 : 12 : 4 : 12 :
8 : 8 : 4 : 8 : 8 : 8 : 12 : 10 : 0 : 8 : 6 : 8 :
6 :
0|width=800|colors=red|group names=|x legends=&nbsp;2009 : : : : : : : : : : : :
&nbsp;2010 : : : : : : : : : : : :
&nbsp;2011 : : : : : : : : : : : :
&nbsp;2012 : : : : : : : : : : : :
&nbsp;2013 : : : : : : : : : : : :
&nbsp;2014 : : : : : : : : : : : :
&nbsp;2015 : : : : : : : : : : : :
&nbsp;2016 : : : : : : : : : : : :
&nbsp;2017 : : : : : : : : : : : :
&nbsp;2018 : : : : : : : : : : : :
&nbsp;2019 : : : : : : : : : : : :
&nbsp;2020 : : : : : : : : : : : :
&nbsp;2021 :}}'''The number of [[Scrambling (military)|Scrambling]] by the [[Japan Air Self-Defense Force]] against foreign aircraft. (2006–2015)'''<ref>{{cite web |date=25 April 2012 |title=平成２３年度の緊急発進実施状況について |url=https://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2012/press_pdf/p20120425.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140202155123/http://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2012/press_pdf/p20120425.pdf |archive-date=2 February 2014 |access-date=28 January 2014 |publisher=Joint Staff Office, Japan Self-Defense Force}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=17 April 2013 |title=平成24年度の緊急発進実施状況について – 防衛省 |url=https://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2013/press_pdf/p20130417_02.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130515025117/http://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2013/press_pdf/p20130417_02.pdf |archive-date=15 May 2013 |access-date=28 January 2014 |publisher=Joint Staff Office, Japan Self-Defense Force}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=21 January 2014 |title=平成25年度3四半期までの緊急発進実施状況について |url=https://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2014/press_pdf/p20140121_01.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140202155053/http://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2014/press_pdf/p20140121_01.pdf |archive-date=2 February 2014 |access-date=28 January 2014 |publisher=Joint Staff Office, Japan Self-Defense Force}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=9 April 2014 |title=Scrambling in 2013 |url=https://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2014/press_pdf/p20140409.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140413125145/http://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2014/press_pdf/p20140409.pdf |archive-date=13 April 2014 |access-date=9 April 2014 |publisher=Japanese Ministry of Defense}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=21 January 2014 |title=平成26年度の緊急発進実施状況について |url=https://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2015/press_pdf/p20150415_01.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150717024956/http://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2015/press_pdf/p20150415_01.pdf |archive-date=17 July 2015 |access-date=15 April 2015 |publisher=Joint Staff Office, Japan Self-Defense Force}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Statistics on scrambles through fiscal year 2016 |url=https://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2017/press_pdf/p20170413_02.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170414000647/http://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2017/press_pdf/p20170413_02.pdf |archive-date=14 April 2017 |access-date=13 April 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=9 April 2020 |title=Statistics on scrambles through FY2019 |url=https://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2020/press_pdf/p20200409_02.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200630160044/https://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2020/press_pdf/p20200409_02.pdf |archive-date=30 June 2020 |access-date=30 June 2020 |publisher=Ministry of Defence}}</ref>{{#invoke:Chart|bar-chart|height=250|width=800|bar_width=50|stack=1|group 1=22 : 43 : 31 : 38 : 96 : 156 : 306 : 415 : 464 : 571 : 851 : 500 : 638 : 675|group 2=217 : 264 : 206 : 261 : 290 : 269 : 261 : 395 : 479 : 302 : 317 : 404 : 351 : 272|colors=red : grey|group names=China : Others|x legends=2006 : 2007 : 2008 : 2009 : 2010 : 2011 : 2012 : 2013 : 2014 : 2015 : 2016 : 2017 : 2018 : 2019}} [[User:JArthur1984|JArthur1984]] ([[User talk:JArthur1984|talk]]) 15:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:29, 30 September 2024

The article is not neutral

[edit]

It leans heavily in favor of the Japanese side. We need it to be more balanced. Cioppino123 (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These sorts of comments are more helpful if you can suggest a specific edit or raise a specific statement from a specific source you'd like to see incorporated. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

::It refers to the islands as Senkaku almost exclusively. This means Wikipedia endorses Japan's claims. Cioppino123 (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2024 (by Rkunstnc, who has fewer than 10 edits as a registered user)

[edit]

Omit ungrammatical "the" before noun subjects "China" and "Taiwan" as follows: 1) Change "between Japan, the China, and the Taiwan" to "between Japan, China, and Taiwan" 2) Change "Both the China and the Taiwan" to "Both China and Taiwan" 3) Change "This is viewed by the China and Taiwan" to "This is viewed by China and Taiwan" 4) Change "an invitation from the China to work together" to "an invitation from China to work together" Rkunstnc (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I removed all of these, thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan?

[edit]

I know that for many purposes the Republic of China is known as Taiwan in English, but for a diplomatic dispute where both Chinese states are pursuing the Chinese claim, the full name of the state really should be mentioned in the lede and probably most uses of it. 219.161.0.19 (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 September 2024

[edit]
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: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Senkaku Islands dispute → Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute – This move is supported by principles of WP:COMMONNAME, precision, naturalness, and NPOVtitle.

This article discusses a territorial dispute between China and Japan which has sometimes flared up. From the Chinese perspective, the islands are the Diaoyu islands. From the Japanese perspective, they are the Senkaku Islands. Our current title pre-supposes the Japanese perspective in Wikivoice.

First, we should avoid this for principles of common name. Recent academic sources already in the article which use Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute include at a minimum Wang (2024), Chen (2023), and Zhao (2023). An initial review of English google results also shows our article to be an outlier, with most sources using both names for the disputed islands.

The move also helps precision, as the current title may be unclear to English-language readers general readers who may have first heard the Chinese usage but not be familiar with the Japanese usage yet.

Finally, NPOV is served by not presuming the correctness of one view of the islands over another. Either Diaoyu/Senkaku or Senkaku/Diaoyu make sense - I think it is better to alphabetize so that no one presumes we are endorsing a claim, but at least in English I recognize that Senkaku/Diaoyu is more common order. The key point is to include both terms. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – one of the most basic principles we always stick to in our naming conventions is we pick one name for something that we deem most appropriate. We cannot avoid the responsibility of doing this by gluing two names together with a slash. Admittedly, this form is well attested in sources as described, but I do not see it as appropriate to treat it as one name when it is clearly two, with that usage arising from palpable dispute concerning its components. Remsense ‥ 论 16:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But in this article, the something is the dispute, which as you recognize the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute is well-attested and sourced. So this is not an original or artificial construction, but the way sources themselves speak in common name about the dispute.
The idea to 'pick just one' leads to a problem of circular logic and dispute. Surely you would agree then that the page should be re-named then to Diaoyu Islands dispute (I ask rhetorically)? When you disagree (as you would and should), you would cite one of my bases (common name), but the solution to common name is Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute, which of course you agree is well-attested. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The form is common, which makes this distinctly more plausible than other cases. I don't think it amounts to a justification for picking two names—it simply does not plausibly read as one name for me, hard as I try—have we pondered opting for a phrasal name per WP:NDESC? Miraculously, I think it's true that this is the only active territorial dispute between China and Japan, so maybe some variation of China–Japan territorial dispute is in play? It feels like it it needs to be tweaked, but... Remsense ‥ 论 17:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion would also be a manifest improvement in page title, although I view it as losing the advantage of common name and precision which I view as supporting my proposal. If move discussion goes in that direction however, it would still improve the current state and I would not be dissatisfied. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The clear issue is that it's ambiguous with historical but potentially better known disputes, and I cannot for the life of me figure out a clean way to disambiguate it further... Remsense ‥ 论 17:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"...in the East China Sea"? JArthur1984 (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First to come to mind, and really it probably is viable, but I got hung up on it being too many words, with one of them being "China". Remsense ‥ 论 17:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the proposed name is not a WP:COMMONNAME. The name should stick as close to the underlying Senkaku Islands article as possible for maximum WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. - Amigao (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Out-of-date and primary source charts

[edit]

I've removed the following charts, which are both out-of-date and sourced entirely to primary source documents by one of the disputing governments. This needs proper sourcing before being restored and it should be brought closer to up to date. Obviously it's in the page history but I'll also archive it here in case someone wants to undertake the project of making it suitable for the article:

The number of Chinese vessels entering the territorial waters near the Senkaku Islands.[1]

5
10
15
20
25
30
 2009
 2010
 2011
 2012
 2013
 2014
 2015
 2016
 2017
 2018
 2019
 2020
 2021

The number of Scrambling by the Japan Air Self-Defense Force against foreign aircraft. (2006–2015)[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

250
500
750
1,000
1,250
1,500
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
  •   China
  •   Others

JArthur1984 (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "The numbers of Chinese government and other vessels that entered Japan's contiguous zone or intruded into territorial sea surrounding the Senkaku Islands". Japan Coast Guard. Archived from the original on 2 April 2015. Retrieved 18 March 2015.
  2. ^ "平成２３年度の緊急発進実施状況について" (PDF). Joint Staff Office, Japan Self-Defense Force. 25 April 2012. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2 February 2014. Retrieved 28 January 2014.
  3. ^ "平成24年度の緊急発進実施状況について – 防衛省" (PDF). Joint Staff Office, Japan Self-Defense Force. 17 April 2013. Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 May 2013. Retrieved 28 January 2014.
  4. ^ "平成25年度3四半期までの緊急発進実施状況について" (PDF). Joint Staff Office, Japan Self-Defense Force. 21 January 2014. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2 February 2014. Retrieved 28 January 2014.
  5. ^ "Scrambling in 2013" (PDF). Japanese Ministry of Defense. 9 April 2014. Archived (PDF) from the original on 13 April 2014. Retrieved 9 April 2014.
  6. ^ "平成26年度の緊急発進実施状況について" (PDF). Joint Staff Office, Japan Self-Defense Force. 21 January 2014. Archived (PDF) from the original on 17 July 2015. Retrieved 15 April 2015.
  7. ^ "Statistics on scrambles through fiscal year 2016" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 14 April 2017. Retrieved 13 April 2017.
  8. ^ "Statistics on scrambles through FY2019" (PDF). Ministry of Defence. 9 April 2020. Archived (PDF) from the original on 30 June 2020. Retrieved 30 June 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Senkaku_Islands_dispute&oldid=1248661021"