Revision as of 15:35, 22 September 2024 editJArthur1984 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,979 edits not quite sure how I have malformed my move requested below, but I will attempt to figure it outTag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:50, 29 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute/Archive 7) (bot |
(24 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{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 ]. 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 ]. Thank you for your cooperation.}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
Line 22: |
Line 23: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Copied|from=Senkaku Islands|from_oldid=389961837|to=Senkaku Islands dispute|to_diff=389961806|to_oldid=389961263}} |
|
{{Copied|from=Senkaku Islands|from_oldid=389961837|to=Senkaku Islands dispute|to_diff=389961806|to_oldid=389961263}} |
|
|
{{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}} |
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 7 |
|
|counter = 7 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Archives|auto=long |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months }} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move 22 September 2024 == |
|
== Warning about possible problems in this article == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<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 --> |
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <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 ] 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>(])</small> ] (]) 17:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
] → {{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. |
|
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. ] (]) 09:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
: Discovered a similar situation on the page. ] (]) 12:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Removed scare quotes used in the lead section around the words 'private owner'. ] (]) 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. " 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. ] (]) 01:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
== Another possible source == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
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=] ]|date=May 1999}} ] (]) 01:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. ] (]) 16:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
== The article is not neutral == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:'''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">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 16:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
<s>It leans heavily in favor of the Japanese side. We need it to be more balanced. ] (]) 21:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)</s> |
|
|
|
::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. ] (]) 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 ]? Miraculously, I think it's true that this is the only active territorial dispute between China and Japan, so maybe some variation of ] is in play? It feels like it it needs to be tweaked, but... <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </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. ] (]) 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">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 17:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::"...in the East China Sea"? ] (]) 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">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 17:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' as the proposed name is not a ]. The name should stick as close to the underlying ] article as possible for maximum ]. - ] (]) 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 ] --> |
|
|
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Out-of-date and primary source charts == |
|
: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. ] (]) 22:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
<s>::It refers to the islands as Senkaku almost exclusively. This means Misplaced Pages endorses Japan's claims. ] (]) 18:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)</s> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2024 (by Rkunstnc, who has fewer than 10 edits as a registered user) == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''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 : |
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Senkaku Islands dispute|answered=yes}} |
|
|
|
0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : |
|
Omit ungrammatical "the" before noun subjects "China" and "Taiwan" as follows: |
|
|
|
0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 2 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : |
|
1) Change "between Japan, the China, and the Taiwan" to "between Japan, China, and Taiwan" |
|
|
|
0 : 0 : 1 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 4 : 0 : 13 : 19 : 15 : 21 : |
|
2) Change "Both the China and the Taiwan" to "Both China and Taiwan" |
|
|
|
17 : 17 : 11 : 25 : 15 : 9 : 14 : 28 : 22 : 8 : 12 : 10 : |
|
3) Change "This is viewed by the China and Taiwan" to "This is viewed by China and Taiwan" |
|
|
|
6 : 9 : 6 : 8 : 5 : 6 : 4 : 10 : 10 : 9 : 8 : 7 : |
|
4) Change "an invitation from the China to work together" to "an invitation from China to work together" ] (]) 06:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
8 : 8 : 9 : 9 : 9 : 8 : 7 : 6 : 9 : 7 : 8 : 7 : |
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> I removed all of these, thanks. ] (]) 19:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
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= 2009 : : : : : : : : : : : : |
|
|
2010 : : : : : : : : : : : : |
|
|
2011 : : : : : : : : : : : : |
|
|
2012 : : : : : : : : : : : : |
|
|
2013 : : : : : : : : : : : : |
|
|
2014 : : : : : : : : : : : : |
|
|
2015 : : : : : : : : : : : : |
|
|
2016 : : : : : : : : : : : : |
|
|
2017 : : : : : : : : : : : : |
|
|
2018 : : : : : : : : : : : : |
|
|
2019 : : : : : : : : : : : : |
|
|
2020 : : : : : : : : : : : : |
|
|
2021 :}}'''The number of ] by the ] 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}} ] (]) 15:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
== Taiwan? == |
|
|
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. ] (]) 08:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Over-quoting == |
|
== Requested move - Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute or Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In its current state, this article consists of too many quotations, many of which are too lengthy with no attempts at proper paraphrasing. Earwig with other sites online. That is not to say that this article is 80.5% plagiarised, but that a significant amount of it consists of direct quotations and close paraphrasing. This article would benefit from a careful and gradual community rewrite. <big>]]</big> 23:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
<nowiki>{{</nowiki>'''subst''':'''requested move'''<nowiki>|Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute or alphabetize as Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute|reason=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.}}</nowiki> ] (]) 15:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
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)
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:
In its current state, this article consists of too many quotations, many of which are too lengthy with no attempts at proper paraphrasing. Earwig returns an 80.5% similarity with other sites online. That is not to say that this article is 80.5% plagiarised, but that a significant amount of it consists of direct quotations and close paraphrasing. This article would benefit from a careful and gradual community rewrite. Yue🌙 23:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)