Template talk:Territorial disputes in East, South, and Southeast Asia
|This template is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Baekdu Mountain
- 2 Inaccurate title?
- 3 clean-up proposal
- 4 Palmas/Miangas Island
- 5 Assam
- 6 Tannu Uriankhai, etc.
- 7 Taiwan claiming everything
- 8 Definition of "Territorial dispute" and Tibet issue
- 9 This template is so wrong, must be cleared
- 10 Problem
- 11 Ru pa ocean islands
- 12 Cleanup
I removed Baekdu Mountain from the template. To the best of my knowledge, none of the governments in the region are disputing any territory administered by any of the other governments. And it's not a situation where there's government in exile. It seems the only thing is that "some Korean groups" have a problem with what the Chinese government has been doing in the territory that it administers. But that hardly makes a territorial dispute. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I restored Mount Baekdu. CIA's World Fact Book says in 'Field Listing - Disputes - international' that "a section of boundary around Mount Paektu is considered indefinite". Its sovereignty may not be actively disputed but not settled. If you want to remove South Korea from claimants, I wont oppose, though. I also changed a link to the region to a link to the dispute. This template is for territorial disputes. --Kusunose 16:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Till now I've been going with whatever is listed on List of territorial disputes#In Asia and the Pacific. If you believe this isn't a territorial dispute, might I suggest changing the list? -Loren 16:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Already done when I made the edit on this template. Anyway, my point is that there's no evidence the Chinese and North Korean governments actually dispute the territory, or what parts of the territory they each control. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The border between China and North Korea was settled long time ago, there is no so called "undefined" borderline. Only some South Korean nationalists claim it, and they also claim Manchuria, so should we add NE China to this template? This is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The template suggests that it deals with East and South Asia, but it also includes Southeast Asia. Perhaps, the template should be renamed Territorial disputes in South Asia and Asia Pacific? __earth (Talk) 14:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't the template much more meaningful if did not contain any single claim by governments (and "governments") that lack both international recognition and the means to even give an appearance of meaningfully pursuing their territorial claims? In my opinion, the template should be split up into a) (real) international disputes, b) areas with independence/secessionist movements and maybe c) a list of claims of a certain former Japanese colony off the Fujian coast. Yaan 16:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is not our place to take sides on the political status of Taiwan and whether or not the ROC's claims have merit. In practice, the ROC functions as a de facto state and that is sufficient. -Loren 16:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't take sides on the political status of Taiwan. I was asking if it wouldn't be more meaningful to ignore claims by governments (and "governments") that lack both international recognition and the means to even give an appearance of meaningfully pursuing their territorial claims. Yaan 16:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- If it's a question of means I fail to see how the ROC lacks that. The ability to secure Taiwan, Kinmen, and Matsu go without saying. There are also ROC garrisons stationed in the South China Sea and regular naval patrols. If you're talking about recognition than that's a whole other arena involving political status which we generally avoid getting into. -Loren 16:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- And if you're talking Mongolia and Mainland China... well, those are open to discussion. The ROC has effectively stopped pursuing those with the end of martial law in the early 90s, though it hasn't actually removed those from official maps due to the political mess that would whip up. -Loren 16:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm exactly talking about the claims on the mainland. My guess is that they are meaningless to anyone outside Taiwan without a special interest in political trivia. Yaan 16:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, those claims are a political minefield that I don't want to get into. Considering the number of times someone tries to stick the 1947 map into the Republic of China locator box, or define the capital at Nanking it apparently matters to someone. Chalk it up as another one of the absurdities of cross-Strait relations. -Loren 17:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- So, I'm going to at least delete the template from the Mongolia page. Territory claimed by the ROC is really not the most important category the country belongs to. Yaan 17:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have no objection to that. -Loren 20:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. why are there single entries for Matsu and Kinmen, but a single one for Taiwan and the Pescadores? Yaan 16:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Penghu is considered to be a part of Taiwan politically and culturally. Kinmen and Matsu are different, corresponding to the Northern Min region culturally, while administratively being part of Fujian. -Loren 17:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds sensible. Thanks Yaan 17:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why it is still here, but the dispute has long been settled before Indonesia and the Philippine were granted independence by the Netherlands and United States respectively. Everyone can go over the text, and clearly see that it has been resolved. It's not even inactive, the Philippines recognized Indonesia's sovereignty in the area. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 03:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
This template lists Assam as being a territory controlled by India and claimed by India. If the only claim is made by India, maybe it should be removed from this template? Or if there is any other reason to have it there, maybe a comment could be added, explaining why it is there. (Stefan2 20:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC))
Tannu Uriankhai, etc.
According to the leaders of both countries, there are no territorial disputes between Russia and China. Any claim to the contrary is patently false and designed to stir up trouble. The inclusion of Tuva into this crappy template looks inflammatory. --Ghirla-трёп- 23:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Taiwan claiming everything
I notice that the infobox has Taiwan claiming everything that China is claiming. I think this is kind of silly: while Taiwan does claim to be the rightful government of China, does it really enter every territorial dispute that China has? In specific, do they claim Tibet (it says here they do): but Tibet was invaded after the 1948 war. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, ROC claims "everything" China and Mongolia claims. The boundary of China is defined in the pre-1949 ROC constitution and has never changed after all these years. PRC sees any changes in the constitution as attempts to break legal ties with China and moves toward Taiwanese Independence. The "territory" of ROC is roughly equal to Qing in 1911 when it falls, this includes Tibet, for which Chinese (Qing, ROC, or PRC) has never recognize its independence, even though the unrecognized Tibet state exists about the time that ROC was in China and ROC never actually administrate it. timdream (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Definition of "Territorial dispute" and Tibet issue
is a disagreement over the possession/control of land between two or more states. Since tibet is not acknowledged as a political entity with effective sovereignty in any country, and the only dispute over tibet is between China and the illegal Central Tibetan Administration,I have removed it from this list. The same goes for Xinjiang Helloterran (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
This template is so wrong, must be cleared
First, there is not dispute on Mount Changbai/Mt Baekdu, it's just a claim of some South Korean nationalist groups, its government has never claimed it. Second, Jiandao is in the same situation as first one; onlt some radical Korean nationalists claim it's Korea, not Korean government. They also claim over almost entire North Eastern China because they believe Koguryo was Korean, and all Koguryo land should be Korean, but again, it's not recognized. I think these disputes were added by some Koreans, and they don't belong here. This template is about the official disputes between governments not private groups. Third, There is no dispute on Ryukyu Islands; China has never claimed the islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
also, Philippines doesn't claim Sahba, and its attitude is very clear. It's just some Filipino nationalist groups. Please do not bring nationalism to this template; if the dispute is not based on government's official claims, it does not belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The template shows the Senkaku Islands as Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. However, all other places in this list are shown with just one name. No offence to Chinese, but I propose the removal of 'Diaoyu Islands' from the template.--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Talk with me) 04:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Ru pa ocean islands
Vostok Suvarov else are and must be Rus , hell , usa uk fr nuked Ausland kiribati marshall polinesia and terrorised cleansed chagos for diego garcia ! and deported chagos to SW --Zafer14ur8 (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC) r & s
and dont forget johnston kwajalein Hawaii wake and some other occupied lands , like okinawa Japan southern Korea , Palau Guam etc
<< Ryk72 (talk | contribs) . . (2,518 bytes) (-70) . . (Reverted by ... : Rv; no indication that these islands are disputed; please discuss on Talk page. (TW)) >>
and wake Chagos (diegogarcia) johnston Kwajalein etc , ?! them there is no freaking one to claim them and are accepted like illegal brute occupation of those islands places i mentioned before
This page needs a cleanup
(1)What are this ’’inactive disputes’’? If a dispute is inactive this means that: There is no dispute in the first place or the dispute was resolved. On this temple we are not dealing with historical disputes. I would suggest that this "disputes should be removed
(2)There is no distinction made between dispute/neclarities/or borders that were never formally agreed.
(3)When we are talking about territorial disputes we should emphasize the government's position and not the opinion of some groups or private persons.
(4)Paektu and Jiandao - As per 1962 border agreement between China and North Korea there are no disputes. Also we have a centuries old border agreement (1712) between Qing and Joseon states. We don't have a claim from South Korean government either. If there was ever a dispute in this case, this should be mentioned on the historical disputes or removed.
(5)Pamir Mountains – as far as I know there was a border agreement between China and Tajikistan (in 2002) and with in Kyrgyzstan in 1999. China resolved all of those disputes with Central Asian countries. Socotra Rock – from the article: In 2013, the PRC clarified their position by stating that China had no dispute with Korea on the issue..
I’m removing Paektu, Jiandao and Pamir from the list. If someone wants to add them back, please, provide a reference from a governmental source, not the opinion of some nationalistic groups or as I saw on this page from Reddit site, from a sub-reddit/subtopic named MapPorn --Daduxing (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- "China's Territorial and Boundary Affairs". Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the People's Republic of China. 2003-06-30. Retrieved 2017-02-05.
- "China says 'no dispute' with S. Korea over Ieodo in new air zone". www.globalpost.com. Yonhap News Agency. 25 November 2013. Retrieved 28 November 2013.