Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute

Another possible source

Found this document from a Hong Kong university. Mathews, Gordon (May 1999). "A Collision of Discourses Japanese and Hong Kong Chinese during the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands Crisis" (PDF). Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The article is not neutral

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

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

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

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)

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

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. 219.161.0.19 (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 22 September 2024

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)

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)

"...in the East China Sea"? 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". Remsense ‥ 论 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. - Amigao (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)