Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute

New Source
Tadayoshi Murata, The Origins of Japanese-Chinese Territorial Dispute (Tokyo: World Scientific, 2016). I noticed this hasn't been used yet, it supports the Chinese position but it uses a lot of evidence.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 10:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Warning about possible problems in this article
I have found two major problems in this article today, one being a sentence about the position of the US State Department and one about the attitude of Japanese government in the 1970's. From these two examples, I infer that this page may also have other problematic areas and I recommend that the article be thoroughly reviewed and checked by multiple experts at the earliest possible date, including the edits I made. I am not an expert in the specifics of this dispute, but the fact that I have seemingly discovered two major problems after a brief glance at the article is not a good sign. Thanks for any help. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Discovered a similar situation on the Senkaku Islands page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed scare quotes used in the lead section around the words 'private owner'. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the US position on the dispute, it does seem that several officials have stated that the US takes what they call a neutral position on the underlying sovereignty question. However, I think there needs to be some kind of official State Department statement, not a collection of quotations, to sustain the sentences I was reading here. There may be a better wording for those sentences. Again, I am no expert in this area but I think there should be very very clear wording about who said what when and who they represented. A WikiLeaks document says " the State Department asserted that the United States took a neutral position with regard to the competing Japanese and Chinese claims to the islands," I read this sentence (especially the word 'asserted') as a partial proof that the sentences I hid on these pages may be a little bit of an overstatement. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Another possible source
Found this document from a Hong Kong university. 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)

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