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)
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: 19:10, January 4, 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:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
"Scrambling in 2013" (PDF). Japanese Ministry of Defense. 9 April 2014. Archived (PDF) from the original on 13 April 2014. Retrieved 9 April 2014.
"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.
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)
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
Remsense ‥ 论 17:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)