Jump to content

Talk:Senkaku Islands

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 108.94.0.18 (talk) at 01:46, 19 August 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Senkaku Islands sanctions

Template:Copied multi


Nixon-Sato Summit in November 21, 1969

It is crucial to understand and to be added to the main article content that Okinawa (including the areas of the latitude of 24°-26° and longitude of 122°-124° of [[Liuqiu69. See http://www.ioc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~worldjpn/documents/texts/docs/19691121.D1E.html (1.164.39.218 (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I don't see any mention of Diaoyu/Pinnacle Islands in that document. Since it's not there explicitly, we would need a reliable source (and by that, I do not mean a Japanese government/advocacy source) that said that Diaoyu was built into that agreement. And, in any event, this would almost certainly belong in Diaoyu Islands dispute, not this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It would be reasonable to add a link of Diaoyu Islands dispute to this article because they are geographically inter-related with the governance on the areas of Ryukyu Islands. (114.36.105.100 (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Edit request on 3 March 2012

The correct name should be Diaoyu Islands

Bingqilin (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please read the sanctions at the top of the page and the conclusion of the RFC on article naming two sections above. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The islands are owned by a Japanese family. They have been under Japanese (or American) control for well over 100 years. There was little if any Chinese control or occupation before that. There are at least three possible names for the islands. As a matter of course the name used by the occupying power (whether legal or not) should be preferred. So Sankaku must be preferred to Diaoyu. If there is no agreement, I would suggest that the name should be Pinnacle, as that represents neither contesting power, and could be regarded as a neutral name.203.184.41.226 (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"As a matter of course the name used by the occupying power should be preferred"—no, the WP:common name is preferred, as "Xisha Islands" is not used for the Paracels. GotR Talk 21:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading Sections

Specifically citations 7 and 12.

First, the source for citation 7 does not mention Senkaku or its equivalent at all. We have no reason to assume that they are included.

As for citation 12, it explicitly includes the original pronunciation and the Mandarin pronunciation, but not the Japanese pronunciation. The phrasing, as it is, is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DXDanl (talkcontribs) 07:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence of lead (at present time!)

The last sentence of the lead is currently incomprehensible to those not already familiar with the topic (e.g. me!) "The Japanese government has not allowed Ishigaki to develop the islands" - Ishigaki has not been mentioned in the lead so far. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the previous sentence mentions Ishigaki City. Moreover, I think it unlikely that someone sane would view the last sentence first. GotR Talk 21:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions

The sanction templates and all the talk page headers had their names changed. i found them again under Senkaku. I have notified the editor that this was improper editing. I am new here, and dont know how the sanctions are actually applied, but this was obviously improper.(mercurywoodrose)108.94.0.18 (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]