Talk:Senkaku Islands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Title of Islands[edit]

It seems to me that there is a bias if the islands are called "Senkaku Islands" in the title instead of something like "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC) I agree, and thought the same thing, exactly. Especially after reading the content of the page, and the length of time that each had any control, and that Japan was told to give up islands except their main islands, by the allies, after world war two. Then it seems the chinese claim is the correct one. And I came to the talk page to wonder what has been written here, and I see it is so clear that anyone immediately would think the same, when the name of the page supports the japanese claim, yet the content seems to make it clear the chinese claim is the true one. And the japanese one was only based on wrong actions to begin with. So it couldn't be accepted as justice in international law. As for the comment below about naming the islands in english. What? The claims are by china/taiwan, and japan. Where does english come into it at all? Europe and north america, do not rule the world and should not. Imperialism of powers from far away, over other countries is injustice.

Better yet -- since this is an English page why not use the English name? The English language name for the islands is Pinnacle Islands. This is the measure taken for the Liancourt Rocks and avoids getting caught up in naming disputes based in nationalistic claims. It appears that this suggestion has ben debated in the past to no avail. However, a precedent has been set with the Liancourt Rocks and it offers a simple, even elegant, solution to this problem. Why not use Pinnacle Islands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
On both points above please see the previous move discussion, which returned no consensus on changing the title of the article. Pinnacle Islands is a decent idea in some respects, but it's a name that's almost never used in English-speaking media today. —Nizolan (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Even though I speak 2 1/2 languages I looked for Senkaku because I can never remember the Chinese name. It's just a silly superficial thing with me. (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Editorial Suggestion[edit]

Would it be possible in the sovereignty section to add a link to the country of Japan, not just the governing body/country of China and Taiwan? There are very CLEAR links to Wikipedia articles on "The Peoples Republic of China" and "Taiwan" followed abruptly by "Japan" with no hyperlink to the article on Japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Submarinevet (talkcontribs) 22:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Submarinevet, I agree that it seems incongruous to have only two of the countries wikilinked. The issue that we run into is that WP:OVERLINK says that we should only link each once, when it first appears in the article; by this standard, we should remove all 3 links from this section. I am not sure that that is the most helpful to the reader, and would like to gauge editor support for linking all 3 at the "sovereignty section". If there are no responses, I will standardise to either 3 wikilinks or no wikilinks in the next day or so. Hope this helps - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the extraneous links per WP:OVERLINK. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)