Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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)
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)
<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 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.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
A news item involving Senkaku Islands dispute was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 19 August 2012.
Misplaced Pages
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 22:28, January 10, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Warning about possible problems in this article
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. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:17, 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. 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. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
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)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2024 (by Rkunstnc, who has fewer than 10 edits as a registered user)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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)
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)
{{subst:requested move|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.}} JArthur1984 (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
Done I removed all of these, thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)